Westmount-Keele Limited v. Royal Host Hotels and Resorts Real EstateInvestment Trust
The appeal is dismissed: the order granting the amendment is interlocutory and not properly before the Court of Appeal, and the motion judge did not err in granting summary judgment because the evidence did not support a reasonable inference that the respondents could foresee their breach would impede Westmount's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2017 ONCA 673
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Westmount-Keele Limited; Defendant: Royal Host Hotels and Resorts Real Estate Investment Trust; Defendant: North York (Keele St.) Purchaseco. Inc.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 August 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Decision on Motions (summary Judgment and Amendment to Pleadings)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Limitation Defence, Amendment of Pleading, Foreseeability/remoteness of Damages, Costs
- 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
Westmount-Keele Limited
Plaintiff
Royal Host Hotels and Resorts Real Estate Investment Trust
Defendant
North York (Keele St.) Purchaseco. Inc.
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court Decision on Motions (summary Judgment and Amendment to Pleadings)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an interlocutory order granting an amendment to plead a limitation defence
- 2 Whether the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim for economic damages by failing to consider foreseeability that the defendants' breach would impede financing for a development phase
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal is dismissed: the order granting the amendment is interlocutory and not properly before the Court of Appeal, and the motion judge did not err in granting summary judgment because the evidence did not support a reasonable inference that the respondents could foresee their breach would impede Westmount's financing of phase II; the record supports the motion judge's analysis and conclusion.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim for economic damages is upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Westmount-Keele Limited v. Royal Host Hotels and Resorts Real EstateInvestment Trust Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2017-08-28 Neutral citation 2017 ONCA 673 Docket numbers C63494 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; Juriansz, Russell G.; Miller, Bradley Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Westmount-Keele Limited v. Royal Host Hotels and Resorts Real Estate Investment Trust, 2017 ONCA 673 DATE: 20170828 DOCKET: C63494 Laskin, Juriansz and Miller JJ.A. BETWEEN Westmount-Keele Limited Plaintiff (Appellant) and Royal Host Hotels and Resorts Real Estate Investment Trust and North York (Keele St.) Purchaseco. Inc. Defendants (Respondents) Kris Borg-Olivier, for the plaintiff (appellant) Jason Woycheshyn and Gannon Beaulne, for the defendants (respondents) Heard: August 25, 2017 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Sidney Lederman of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 8, 2017. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] Westmount makes two submissions. Its first submission is that the motion judge erred in granting an amendment to the statement of defence to permit the defendants to plead a limitation defence. In our view the order granting the amendment is an interlocutory order and therefore this court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal from that order. [2] Westmount’s second submission is that the motion judge erred in granting summary judgment dismissing its claim for economic damages. Westmount contends that the motion judge erred by failing to consider whether the respondents’ breach of its obligation to properly quantify its post-closing costs could reasonably be foreseen to have impeded Westmount’s ability to obtain financing for phase II of the development. Westmount says that because of the respondent’s breach the vendor take-back remained on title and the respondent could reasonably have contemplated that the phase II development would have failed for lack of financing. [3] We do not accept this submission. [4] The motion judge affectively addressed Westmount’s submission at para. 65 and 67 of his reasons. The relevant record, much of which is in the respondent’s extract book, supports the motion judge’s analysis and conclusion. [5] The appeal is dismissed with costs of $20,000 all in.