1615540 Ontario Inc. (Healing Hands Massage Therapy) v. Simon

1615540 Ontario Inc. (Healing Hands Massage Therapy) v. Simon

The appeal was allowed and the judgment set aside because the motion judge failed to explain how he resolved clear, contested factual conflicts that required credibility findings and did not expressly consider or invoke the procedural powers under rr.20.04(2.1)-(2.2); this absence of explanation risked substantive injustice and required remittance for further proceedings.

Citation
2016 ONCA 966
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): 1615540 Ontario Inc. (Healing Hands Massage Therapy Clinic); Defendant (respondent); Plaintiff by Counterclaim (respondent): Joy Nicole Simon; Defendant (respondent): Alen M. Katic; Defendant by Counterclaim (appellant): Asher Mahmood
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion / Appeal From Decision of Superior Court of Justice on Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment on claim and counterclaim set aside and matter remitted
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Damages, Business Disengagement, Personal Health Information Custody
Source Language
English
Civil Contract Equity Health Privacy Summary Judgment Damages Business Disengagement Personal Health Information Custody

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

1615540 Ontario Inc. (Healing Hands Massage Therapy Clinic)

Plaintiff (appellant)

Joy Nicole Simon

Defendant (respondent); Plaintiff by Counterclaim (respondent)

Alen M. Katic

Defendant (respondent)

Asher Mahmood

Defendant by Counterclaim (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment Motion / Appeal From Decision of Superior Court of Justice on Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge properly exercised powers under Rule 20 in the face of conflicting evidence
  2. 2 Whether the motion judge erred in awarding damages and in the quantum calculation
  3. 3 Whether the motion judge failed to address the appellant's summary judgment motion

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and the judgment set aside because the motion judge failed to explain how he resolved clear, contested factual conflicts that required credibility findings and did not expressly consider or invoke the procedural powers under rr.20.04(2.1)-(2.2); this absence of explanation risked substantive injustice and required remittance for further proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment on claim and counterclaim set aside and matter remitted

Orders

  • Judgment under appeal set aside
  • Parties free to pursue their claims including other summary judgment motions without being bound by prior determinations