Fritz Marketing Inc. v. Metz

Fritz Marketing Inc. v. Metz

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the motion record, including affidavits, documents and cross-examination, supported the motion judge's factual findings that the appellant agreed to be personally liable and understood the allocation of payments, so there was no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment was proper.

Citation
2015 ONCA 410
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: Fritz Marketing Inc.; Appellant/defendant: Joseph Henry Metz; Appellant/defendant: Elmira Bag & Burlap Ltd.; Appellant/defendant: Ontario Bag Company Ltd.; Appellant/defendant: GX Packaging Canada Ltd.
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment below upheld; costs awarded in agreed amount of $19,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Personal Liability of Corporate Principal, Set Off and Allocation of Payments, Counterclaim for Defective Goods, Rule 20 (trial of Issue/mini Trial)
Source Language
English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Appeal Summary Judgment Personal Liability of Corporate Principal Set Off and Allocation of Payments Counterclaim for Defective Goods +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fritz Marketing Inc.

Respondent/plaintiff

Joseph Henry Metz

Appellant/defendant

Elmira Bag & Burlap Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

Ontario Bag Company Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

GX Packaging Canada Ltd.

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Motion for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant agreed to be personally liable for company debts
  2. 2 Whether payments for new purchases were to be credited first to an outstanding debt of a related company (allocation of payments/set-off)
  3. 3 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing to order a trial or hearing under Rule 20 despite cross-examinations on affidavits

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the motion record, including affidavits, documents and cross-examination, supported the motion judge's factual findings that the appellant agreed to be personally liable and understood the allocation of payments, so there was no genuine issue for trial and summary judgment was proper.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment below upheld; costs awarded in agreed amount of $19,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Summary judgment against Joseph Henry Metz for amounts owing on invoices (for bags supplied to Elmira Bag & Burlap Ltd. and GX Packaging Canada Ltd.) upheld.