2129152 Ontario Inc. v. Pliamm

2129152 Ontario Inc. v. Pliamm

The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge correctly concluded summary judgment was appropriate given the separate action against subtenants, there was no privity or alleged breach to ground an unlawful act conspiracy, and the appellant failed to establish the subtenants' conduct was directed at it.

Citation
2018 ONCA 338
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): 2129152 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Sara Pliamm; Defendant (respondent): The Quit Clinic Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Igor Pelz; Defendant (respondent): Mila Kisilevsky; Defendant (respondent): Kit Guan; Defendant (respondent): Akil Dhirani; Defendant (respondent): 2006829 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (respondent): 1322784 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Luiba Grossman; Defendant (respondent): Bob Grossman; Defendant (respondent): 1566901 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (respondent): North York Endoscopy Centre Inc.; Defendant (respondent): John Phlamon; Defendant (respondent): Peter Faltaous; Defendant (respondent): Basem Ghatas; Defendant (respondent): 1738889 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (respondent): XYZ1 Corporation; Defendant (respondent): XYZ2 Corporation; Defendant (respondent): XYZ3 Corporation; Defendant (respondent): XYZ4 Corporation; Defendant (respondent): XYZ5 Corporation; Defendant (respondent): XYZ6 Corporation; Defendant (respondent): XYZ7 Corporation
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Order on Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Unlawful Act Conspiracy, Privity of Contract, Consolidation, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Landlord and Tenant Procedure Tort Summary Judgment Unlawful Act Conspiracy Privity of Contract Consolidation +1 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

2129152 Ontario Inc.

Plaintiff (appellant)

Sara Pliamm

Defendant (respondent)

The Quit Clinic Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Igor Pelz

Defendant (respondent)

Mila Kisilevsky

Defendant (respondent)

Kit Guan

Defendant (respondent)

Akil Dhirani

Defendant (respondent)

2006829 Ontario Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

1322784 Ontario Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

Luiba Grossman

Defendant (respondent)

Bob Grossman

Defendant (respondent)

1566901 Ontario Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

North York Endoscopy Centre Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

John Phlamon

Defendant (respondent)

Peter Faltaous

Defendant (respondent)

Basem Ghatas

Defendant (respondent)

1738889 Ontario Inc.

Defendant (respondent)

XYZ1 Corporation

Defendant (respondent)

XYZ2 Corporation

Defendant (respondent)

XYZ3 Corporation

Defendant (respondent)

XYZ4 Corporation

Defendant (respondent)

XYZ5 Corporation

Defendant (respondent)

XYZ6 Corporation

Defendant (respondent)

XYZ7 Corporation

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Order on Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate against subtenants
  2. 2 Whether an unlawful act conspiracy claim can stand absent privity or an underlying breach
  3. 3 Whether the subtenants' conduct was directed toward the landlord

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal because the motion judge correctly concluded summary judgment was appropriate given the separate action against subtenants, there was no privity or alleged breach to ground an unlawful act conspiracy, and the appellant failed to establish the subtenants' conduct was directed at it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs fixed at $10,000 on a partial indemnity scale inclusive of disbursements and applicable tax