Treats International Franchise Corporation v. 2247383 Ontario Inc.

Treats International Franchise Corporation v. 2247383 Ontario Inc.

The appeal was quashed because the order appealed from dismissed a summary judgment motion and was interlocutory, and the procedural route for interlocutory appeals (leave/extension to seek leave) had not been followed; the motion judge's obiter remarks did not alter that requirement.

Citation
2016 ONCA 429
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Treats International Franchise Corporation; Plaintiff/respondent: Treats International Development Corporation; Defendant/appellant: 2247383 Ontario Inc.; Defendant/appellant: Anand Shukla; Defendant/appellant: Anilkumar Patel; Defendant to Counterclaim/respondent: Michael Crotty; Defendant to Counterclaim/respondent: Ryan Gibson; Defendant to Counterclaim/respondent: Doug Lippay
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Interlocutory Order Dismissing Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome
Appeal quashed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Interlocutory Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Bankruptcy of Defendant, Spoliation, Procedural Discretion
Source Language
English
Civil Summary Judgment Interlocutory Appeal Leave to Appeal Bankruptcy of Defendant Spoliation Procedural Discretion

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Treats International Franchise Corporation

Plaintiff/respondent

Treats International Development Corporation

Plaintiff/respondent

2247383 Ontario Inc.

Defendant/appellant

Anand Shukla

Defendant/appellant

Anilkumar Patel

Defendant/appellant

Michael Crotty

Defendant to Counterclaim/respondent

Ryan Gibson

Defendant to Counterclaim/respondent

Doug Lippay

Defendant to Counterclaim/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Interlocutory Order Dismissing Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order dismissing the defendants' summary judgment motion was appealable as of right or interlocutory requiring leave
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge's obiter comments about the statement of defence and counterclaim being nullities and about spoliation affected appealability or warranted substantive review
  3. 3 Whether the bankruptcy of a defendant justified permitting the matter to proceed despite interlocutory status

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was quashed because the order appealed from dismissed a summary judgment motion and was interlocutory, and the procedural route for interlocutory appeals (leave/extension to seek leave) had not been followed; the motion judge's obiter remarks did not alter that requirement.

Court Disposition

Appeal quashed

Orders

  • Appeal quashed