Williams Distinctive Gems Inc. v. Advantex Dining Corporation

Williams Distinctive Gems Inc. v. Advantex Dining Corporation

The Court held the appellant ought to have discovered its claim by December 2012 based on admissions by the appellant's principal and therefore the action against CIBC was statute-barred; the alleged fiduciary duty was not pleaded and could not rescue the claim at the summary judgment motion; however the motion judge erred in awarding excessive costs inconsistent with proportionality under the simplified procedure and the proper costs award is substituted at $25,000 inclusive.

Citation
2019 ONCA 702
Parties
Appellant (plaintiff): Williams Distinctive Gems Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Advantex Dining Corporation; Respondent (defendant): Advantex Marketing International Inc.; Respondent (defendant): Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment and Costs Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part: dismissal of claim against CIBC affirmed; costs award reduced.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Discoverability Under Limitations Law, Limitations Act 2002 S.5, Simplified Procedure, Proportionality in Costs, Misrepresentation, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Agency/bank Arrangements
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Limitations Costs Contract Law Banking Law Equity (fiduciary Duty) Summary Judgment Discoverability Under Limitations Law +6 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Williams Distinctive Gems Inc.

Appellant (plaintiff)

Advantex Dining Corporation

Respondent (defendant)

Advantex Marketing International Inc.

Respondent (defendant)

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Respondent (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Summary Judgment / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Summary Judgment and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002
  2. 2 When the appellant actually or ought to have discovered the claim (discoverability)
  3. 3 Whether each sale restarted the limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the appellant ought to have discovered its claim by December 2012 based on admissions by the appellant's principal and therefore the action against CIBC was statute-barred; the alleged fiduciary duty was not pleaded and could not rescue the claim at the summary judgment motion; however the motion judge erred in awarding excessive costs inconsistent with proportionality under the simplified procedure and the proper costs award is substituted at $25,000 inclusive.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in part and allowed in part: dismissal of claim against CIBC affirmed; costs award reduced.

Orders

  • Appeal from dismissal of the appellant's claim against CIBC dismissed.
  • Appeal from the costs order allowed in part.