Tribax Management Limited v. Laswind Investments Limited
The appeal was allowed in part: paragraph 1 of the agreed order was struck because the motion judge's refusal of the injunction did not finally determine the majority's authority to sell the property, leaving that issue for trial; paragraph 4 denying the injunction was left intact and costs of $3,000 were awarded to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C38416
- Parties
- Appellant: Tribax Management Limited; Appellant: Dibax Limited; Respondent: Laswind Investments Limited; Respondent: Sharico Holdings Limited; Respondent: Timron Investments Limited; Respondent: Sagitta Development & Management Inc.; Respondent: Amirali D. Dharani; Respondent: Madat Shariff; Respondent: Abdullah R. Haswani
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 May 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Motion Judge Order
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part: paragraph 1 of the agreed order struck out; paragraph 4 denying injunctive relief upheld; costs awarded to respondents.
- Legal Topics
- Injunction, Authority of Majority to Sell Property, Costs, Final Order Vs Interlocutory Decision
- 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
Tribax Management Limited
Appellant
Dibax Limited
Appellant
Laswind Investments Limited
Respondent
Sharico Holdings Limited
Respondent
Timron Investments Limited
Respondent
Sagitta Development & Management Inc.
Respondent
Amirali D. Dharani
Respondent
Madat Shariff
Respondent
Abdullah R. Haswani
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Superior Court Motion Judge Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge's refusal of an injunction constituted a final determination of the majority's authority to sell the property
- 2 Whether the agreed form of order containing a purported final paragraph should be struck because the authority issue remains live for trial
- 3 Whether costs should be awarded for counsel's agreement and failure to consult
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was allowed in part: paragraph 1 of the agreed order was struck because the motion judge's refusal of the injunction did not finally determine the majority's authority to sell the property, leaving that issue for trial; paragraph 4 denying the injunction was left intact and costs of $3,000 were awarded to the respondents.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part: paragraph 1 of the agreed order struck out; paragraph 4 denying injunctive relief upheld; costs awarded to respondents.
Orders
- Paragraph 1 of the agreed order struck out
- Paragraph 4 denying injunctive relief affirmed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Tribax Management Limited v. Laswind Investments Limited Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2003-05-08 Docket numbers C38416 Judges Feldman, Kathryn N.; Simmons, Janet M.; Gillese, Eileen E. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20030508 DOCKET: C38416 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: TRIBAX MANAGEMENT LIMITED and DIBAX LIMITED (Appellants) - and - LASWIND INVESTMENTS LIMITED, SHARICO HOLDINGS LIMITED, TIMRON INVESTMENTS LIMITED, SAGITTA DEVELOPMENT & MANAGEMENT INC. AMIRALI D. DHARANI, MADAT SHARIFF AND ABDULLAH R. HASWANI BEFORE: FELDMAN, SIMMONS and GILLESE JJ.A. COUNSEL: Lloyd D. Cadsby, Q.C. and John Chapman for the appellants D. Barry Prentice for the respondents HEARD: May 8, 2003 On appeal from the order of Justice Sarah Pepall of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 7, 2002. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The parties agreed on the form of order in this case and included paragraph 1 which appears to be a final order. However, the issue decided by the motion judge was to deny an injunction preventing the sale. The motion judge's reasons for refusing the injunction are based on her view of the agreement, however, those reasons do not amount to a final determination of the issue of the authority of the majority to sell the property. Before us counsel agreed that the authority issue is a live issue for trial. As a result, paragraph 1 of the order is struck out. To that extent the appeal is allowed. Paragraph 4 denies the relief of injunction. [2] In light of counsel's agreement before us that the issue remains open and that counsel did not consult on the issue before hand, costs of $3,000 to the respondents.