Heliotrope Investment Corporation v. 1324789 Ontario Inc.

Heliotrope Investment Corporation v. 1324789 Ontario Inc.

The court allowed the Supplementary Notice of Appeal because the evidence shows the appellants intended to appeal both the refusal to stay and the merits of the summary judgment and justice requires clarification; the court refused to admit fresh evidence because the alleged new material concerning lack of legal advice and duress was not new, was available at the time of the motion, and the motion judge had already found the agreements were negotiated at arm’s length with independent legal counsel.

Citation
2021 ONCA 23
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent/responding Party): Heliotrope Investment Corporation; Defendant (appellant/moving Party): 1324789 Ontario Inc.; Defendant (appellant/moving Party): Martha Lorraine Beach; Defendant (appellant/moving Party): Johnathan Gary Beach; Defendant (appellant/moving Party): 1073650 Ontario Inc.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim (respondent/responding Party): Canadian Western Trust Company (In Trust for RRSP Plan #10084752 and Plan #10084190); Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent/responding Party): Magenta Capital Corporation; Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent/responding Party): Magenta Mortgage Investment Corporation
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment; Motions for Extension of Time to File Supplementary Notice and to Adduce Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Supplementary Notice of Appeal permitted to be filed to clarify that the appeal challenges both the refusal to stay and the merits of the summary judgment; motion to adduce fresh evidence denied; parties to file costs submissions if unable to agree.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Extension of Time to Appeal, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Stay Pending Appeal, Fiduciary Duty, Joint Venture Agreements, Mortgage Enforcement, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Commercial Law Mortgage Law Procedural Law Appeals Summary Judgment Extension of Time to Appeal Fresh Evidence on Appeal +5 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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heliotrope Investment Corporation

Plaintiff (respondent/responding Party)

1324789 Ontario Inc.

Defendant (appellant/moving Party)

Martha Lorraine Beach

Defendant (appellant/moving Party)

Johnathan Gary Beach

Defendant (appellant/moving Party)

1073650 Ontario Inc.

Defendant (appellant/moving Party)

Canadian Western Trust Company (In Trust for RRSP Plan #10084752 and Plan #10084190)

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim (respondent/responding Party)

Magenta Capital Corporation

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent/responding Party)

Magenta Mortgage Investment Corporation

Defendant by Counterclaim (respondent/responding Party)

Procedural Posture

Collection / Appeal From Summary Judgment; Motions for Extension of Time to File Supplementary Notice and to Adduce Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an extension of time to file a Supplementary Notice of Appeal to clarify that the appeal challenges the merits of the summary judgment order;
  2. 2 Whether to permit fresh evidence on appeal (allegations of lack of independent legal advice and duress) that was not before the motion judge;
  3. 3 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing a stay of enforcement pending related litigation;

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the Supplementary Notice of Appeal because the evidence shows the appellants intended to appeal both the refusal to stay and the merits of the summary judgment and justice requires clarification; the court refused to admit fresh evidence because the alleged new material concerning lack of legal advice and duress was not new, was available at the time of the motion, and the motion judge had already found the agreements were negotiated at arm’s length with independent legal counsel.

Court Disposition

Supplementary Notice of Appeal permitted to be filed to clarify that the appeal challenges both the refusal to stay and the merits of the summary judgment; motion to adduce fresh evidence denied; parties to file costs submissions if unable to agree.

Orders

  • Permission granted to file the proposed Supplementary Notice of Appeal to confirm the appeal includes both issues raised on the summary judgment motion
  • Request to adduce fresh evidence on appeal dismissed