OLA Staffing Inc. v. D'Angelo Brands (2156775 Ontario Inc.)

OLA Staffing Inc. v. D'Angelo Brands (2156775 Ontario Inc.)

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment in favour of the respondent was proper because much of the appellant's evidence was inadmissible hearsay, legal set-off was inapplicable as the appellant's claim was for unliquidated damages, and equitable set-off was unavailable because there were no equitable grounds to protect the appellant given that its representative orchestrated the fraud and the appellant was best placed to detect and prevent it, so the appellant must bear the loss.

Citation
2018 ONCA 922
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): OLA Staffing Inc.; Defendant (appellant): 2156775 Ontario Inc. o/a D'Angelo Brands
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Equitable Set Off, Legal Set Off, Hearsay Admissibility, Fraud, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Contract Commercial Law Evidence Equitable Set Off Summary Judgment Legal Set Off Hearsay Admissibility +2 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OLA Staffing Inc.

Plaintiff (respondent)

2156775 Ontario Inc. o/a D'Angelo Brands

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether equitable set-off was available to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether legal set-off applies to unliquidated claims
  3. 3 Admissibility of hearsay evidence under Rule 39.01(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment in favour of the respondent was proper because much of the appellant's evidence was inadmissible hearsay, legal set-off was inapplicable as the appellant's claim was for unliquidated damages, and equitable set-off was unavailable because there were no equitable grounds to protect the appellant given that its representative orchestrated the fraud and the appellant was best placed to detect and prevent it, so the appellant must bear the loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment affirmed in favour of the respondent for amounts due on the unpaid invoices.
  • Appellant to pay respondent costs of the appeal fixed at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.