Net Connect Installation Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc.

Net Connect Installation Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc.

The motion judge's factual findings that the agreement was not a joint venture, that the appellants breached the agreement and misappropriated funds, and that loans were owed were available on the record and not palpably erroneous; those findings entitled to deference led to dismissal of the appeal, justification of a full indemnity costs award given exceptional misconduct (movement of funds abroad and fabricated evidence), but the damages judgment was varied to remove recovery in favour of non-party individuals because only corporate litigants were parties to the agreement; leave to appeal costs was dismissed and funds paid into court were ordered released to respondents' counsel with...

Citation
2017 ONCA 766
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Net Connect Installation Inc.; Defendant (appellant): Mobile Zone Inc.; Defendant (appellant): Mohammad Shahzad; Defendant (appellant): Swati Damle; Defendant to the Counterclaim (respondent): ICT North Inc.; Defendant to the Counterclaim (respondent): Wayne LaPlante; Defendant to the Counterclaim (respondent): Charleen Wunderlich
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (appeal From Summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Decision (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except that the judgment below is varied to remove individuals from the damages award; leave to appeal the costs award dismissed; costs of the appeal awarded to respondents $20,000; funds paid into court ordered released to respondents' law firm in trust and Mareva injunction lifted upon payment.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Joint Venture, Breach of Contract, Misappropriation, Mareva Injunction, Costs Full Indemnity, Leave to Appeal Costs, Damages
Source Language
English
Contract Civil Procedure Costs Injunctions Equitable Remedies Summary Judgment Joint Venture Breach of Contract +5 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Net Connect Installation Inc.

Plaintiff (respondent)

Mobile Zone Inc.

Defendant (appellant)

Mohammad Shahzad

Defendant (appellant)

Swati Damle

Defendant (appellant)

ICT North Inc.

Defendant to the Counterclaim (respondent)

Wayne LaPlante

Defendant to the Counterclaim (respondent)

Charleen Wunderlich

Defendant to the Counterclaim (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (appeal From Summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Decision (reasons for Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties' agreement constituted a joint venture
  2. 2 Whether the appellants breached the agreement
  3. 3 Whether the agreement was varied by further agreements in March and November 2013

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge's factual findings that the agreement was not a joint venture, that the appellants breached the agreement and misappropriated funds, and that loans were owed were available on the record and not palpably erroneous; those findings entitled to deference led to dismissal of the appeal, justification of a full indemnity costs award given exceptional misconduct (movement of funds abroad and fabricated evidence), but the damages judgment was varied to remove recovery in favour of non-party individuals because only corporate litigants were parties to the agreement; leave to appeal costs was dismissed and funds paid into court were ordered released to respondents' counsel with...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except that the judgment below is varied to remove individuals from the damages award; leave to appeal the costs award dismissed; costs of the appeal awarded to respondents $20,000; funds paid into court ordered released to respondents' law firm in trust and Mareva injunction lifted upon payment.

Orders

  • Judgment below varied to remove the handwritten amendment in paragraph 3 removing recovery in favour of individuals
  • Appeal dismissed except for the amendment to the judgment