LaFramboise v. Kaisersingh

LaFramboise v. Kaisersingh

The motion judge's critical factual findings—that Mr. Pomer was aware of the appellant's action prior to signing the release, that the appellant was aware of the assessment proceeding by July 2014 and did not seek to be added, and that the respondents could rely on the appellant's counsel's representation—were supported by the evidence; therefore there was no material non-disclosure or fraudulent representation and summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action was properly granted.

Citation
2018 ONCA 734
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Doug LaFramboise; Defendants (respondents): Varindra Kaisersingh and Cindy Kaisersingh
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissing Action
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment dismissing the action upheld
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Non Disclosure, Fraudulent Representation, Assessment of Accounts, Release of Account
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Legal Fees Appeal Summary Judgment Non Disclosure Fraudulent Representation Assessment of Accounts Release of Account

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doug LaFramboise

Plaintiff (appellant)

Varindra Kaisersingh and Cindy Kaisersingh

Defendants (respondents)

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment Dismissing Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge erred in finding no material non-disclosure or fraudulent representation in relation to the release signed by Mr. Pomer and the assessment proceeding
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had notice of the assessment proceeding and the opportunity to participate or be added as a party
  3. 3 Whether the respondents could rely on appellant's counsel's representations to the assessment officer

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge's critical factual findings—that Mr. Pomer was aware of the appellant's action prior to signing the release, that the appellant was aware of the assessment proceeding by July 2014 and did not seek to be added, and that the respondents could rely on the appellant's counsel's representation—were supported by the evidence; therefore there was no material non-disclosure or fraudulent representation and summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action was properly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment dismissing the action upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the motion judge granting summary judgment dismissing the appellant's action is upheld