Distributions Katrina Inc. v. Enroute Imports Inc.

Distributions Katrina Inc. v. Enroute Imports Inc.

The motion judge properly applied the summary judgment test and equitable principles: the counterclaim was not so closely connected as to bar enforcement of the respondent's claim, there was no demonstrated risk of inconsistency from granting judgment on the claim, and the record supported piercing the corporate veil to hold the individual appellant personally liable; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
2019 ONCA 441
Parties
Plaintiff / Respondent: Distributions Katrina Inc.; Defendant / Appellant: Enroute Imports Inc.; Defendant / Appellant: Vincent P. Pileggi; Defendant to Counterclaim / Respondent: Robert Geoffrey
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Equitable Set Off, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Partial Summary Judgment, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Litigation Corporate Law Equity Summary Judgment Equitable Set Off Piercing the Corporate Veil Partial Summary Judgment Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Distributions Katrina Inc.

Plaintiff / Respondent

Enroute Imports Inc.

Defendant / Appellant

Vincent P. Pileggi

Defendant / Appellant

Robert Geoffrey

Defendant to Counterclaim / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motion judge applied the correct summary judgment test
  2. 2 Whether equitable set-off or a stay pending the counterclaim barred enforcement of the respondent's claim
  3. 3 Whether granting judgment on the claim without staying for the counterclaim constituted improper partial summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The motion judge properly applied the summary judgment test and equitable principles: the counterclaim was not so closely connected as to bar enforcement of the respondent's claim, there was no demonstrated risk of inconsistency from granting judgment on the claim, and the record supported piercing the corporate veil to hold the individual appellant personally liable; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the respondent on the claim without set-off or stay pending the counterclaim
  • Individual appellant (Vincent P. Pileggi) held personally liable