Seguin (Township) v. Grin
Because the appeal was unopposed and the matter had been settled between the parties, the Court allowed the appeal, declined to comment on the merits and made no order as to costs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C42236
- Parties
- Appellant: THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEGUIN; Respondent: Adam Grin; Respondent: Kimberley Beemer
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 April 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Order; Court of Appeal Endorsement
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; matter settled; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Unopposed Appeal, Settlement, Costs, Endorsement
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEGUIN
Appellant
Adam Grin
Respondent
Kimberley Beemer
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Order; Court of Appeal Endorsement
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be allowed where it is unopposed
- 2 Effect of parties' settlement on judicial comment regarding merits
- 3 Whether an order for costs should be made
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appeal was unopposed and the matter had been settled between the parties, the Court allowed the appeal, declined to comment on the merits and made no order as to costs.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; matter settled; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Appeal allowed
- No comment on the merits
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Seguin (Township) v. Grin Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-04-20 Docket numbers C42236 Judges Weiler, Karen Merle Magnuson; Rosenberg, Marc; Lang, Susan Elizabeth Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 200504120 DOCKET: C42236 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SEGUIN (Appellant) – and – ADAM GRIN and KIMBERLEY BEEMER (Respondents) BEFORE: WEILER, ROSENBERG and LANG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Christopher J. Tzekas for the appellant C. M. Loopstra for the respondents HEARD & ENDORSED: April 18, 2005 On appeal from the order of Justice Alfred J. Stong of the Superior Court of Justice dated July 2, 2004. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appeal, being unopposed, is allowed. We understand that the matter has been settled and we make no comment on the merits of the appeal. We also make no order as to costs.