Bono General Construction Limited v. Trevor Nicholas Construction Co. Limited
The motion to set aside the dismissal was denied because the appeals had been fully argued and decided on their merits and the materials filed by the movant did not demonstrate any legal or factual ground warranting the extraordinary remedy of setting aside the court's order.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C33561, C34068, C34110, M26696
- Parties
- Plaintiff/respondent: Bono General Construction Limited; Defendant/appellant: Trevor Nicholas Construction Co. Limited; Respondent: The Town of Flamborough; Appellant/movant: John Susin; Defendant/respondent: Carmelo Bono; Defendant/respondent: Anne Bono; Defendant/respondent: Salvatore (Sam) Bono
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 25 January 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Construction Lien Appeals Under the Construction Lien Act / Appeals Dismissed by Court of Appeal; Subsequent Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Denied
- Outcome
- Appeals previously dismissed with costs; motion to set aside that dismissal denied
- Legal Topics
- Construction Lien Act, Motion to Set Aside, Court Rules, Rule 37.12.1(4), Costs, Oral Argument
- 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
Bono General Construction Limited
Plaintiff/respondent
Trevor Nicholas Construction Co. Limited
Defendant/appellant
The Town of Flamborough
Respondent
John Susin
Appellant/movant
Carmelo Bono
Defendant/respondent
Anne Bono
Defendant/respondent
Salvatore (Sam) Bono
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Construction Lien Appeals Under the Construction Lien Act / Appeals Dismissed by Court of Appeal; Subsequent Motion to Set Aside Dismissal Denied
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside its order dismissing the appeals
- 2 Whether the material filed by the movant established legal or factual grounds warranting relief
- 3 Whether it was necessary to hear oral argument from the responding parties on the motion
Ratio Decidendi
The motion to set aside the dismissal was denied because the appeals had been fully argued and decided on their merits and the materials filed by the movant did not demonstrate any legal or factual ground warranting the extraordinary remedy of setting aside the court's order.
Court Disposition
Appeals previously dismissed with costs; motion to set aside that dismissal denied
Orders
- Motion to set aside the Court of Appeal's order dismissing the appeals dismissed
- No oral argument from responding parties directed as the panel relied solely on the materials filed by the movant
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Bono General Construction Limited v. Trevor Nicholas Construction Co. Limited Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2001-01-25 Docket numbers C33561, C34068, C34110, M26696 Judges Catzman, Marvin Adrian; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Sharpe, Robert J. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20010125 DOCKETS: C33561, C34068, C34110 M26696 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: BONO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (Plaintiff/ Respondent) –and– TREVOR NICHOLAS CONSTRUCTION CO. LIMITED (Defendant/Appellant) IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTRUCTION LIEN ACT R.S.O. 1983, c.6 RE: TREVOR NICHOLAS CONSTRUCTION CO. LIMITED (Plaintiff/Appellant) –and– BONO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED and THE TOWN OF FLAMBOROUGH AND RE: JOHN SUSIN –and– BONO GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, CARMELO BONO, ANNE BONO and SALVATORE (SAM) BONO (Defendants/Respondents) BEFORE: CATZMAN, ABELLA and SHARPE JJ.A. HEARD: In writing ENDORSEMENT [1] These appeals were heard by this panel on October 31, 2000. At the conclusion of the appellants’ argument, we dismissed the appeals with costs. [2] The appellants were represented by counsel on the hearing of these appeals. [3] John Susin, on behalf of himself and the corporate appellants, now moves for an order setting aside this court’s order dismissing the appeals. He proposes that the motion be heard in writing as an opposed motion under rule 37.12.1(4). [4] The members of the panel have read the material filed by Mr. Susin in support of this motion and we are all of the view that the motion should be denied. The appeals were fully argued and decided on their merits. Nothing in the material filed persuades us of any legal or factual ground that would warrant the remedy sought on this motion. [5] The panel notes that the responding parties filed a notice intending to make oral argument on this motion. In reaching our conclusion, we have had regard only to the material filed by Mr. Susin. Having done so, we are all of the view that it will not be necessary for us to hear submissions from counsel for the responding parties. Accordingly, we have not directed that the motion be set down for oral argument. [6] The motion is dismissed. Signed: “M.A. Catzman J.A.” “R.S. Abella J.A.” “Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”