Cohen v. YMR Capital Management Corp.
The motion judge did not err: there was no genuine issue for trial in fact or law, the counterclaim was not sufficiently related to the promissory note enforcement claim to justify a stay, and no basis existed to grant a longer adjournment; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C45737
- Parties
- Respondent: Jason Cohen; Respondent: JIC Consultants Limited carrying on business as COMPU-101; Respondent: Irit Cohen; Appellant: YMR Capital Management Corp.; Appellant: Rotsheld Rakhnayev also known as Roger Rakhnayev and also known as Rosha Rakhnayev; Appellant: Elena Abramov; Appellant: Michael Rakhnayev; Appellant: Yury Rakhnayev; Appellant: 2020494 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as RBA Financial Group
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 10 November 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Motion (motion Judge: Justice Edward Belobaba)
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; motion judge's decision affirmed.
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Stay, Counterclaim Relation, Genuine Issue for Trial, Promissory Note Enforcement, Record Augmentation
- 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
Jason Cohen
Respondent
JIC Consultants Limited carrying on business as COMPU-101
Respondent
Irit Cohen
Respondent
YMR Capital Management Corp.
Appellant
Rotsheld Rakhnayev also known as Roger Rakhnayev and also known as Rosha Rakhnayev
Appellant
Elena Abramov
Appellant
Michael Rakhnayev
Appellant
Yury Rakhnayev
Appellant
2020494 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as RBA Financial Group
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Superior Court Motion (motion Judge: Justice Edward Belobaba)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the motion judge erred in refusing a longer adjournment
- 2 Whether there was a genuine issue for trial in fact or law
- 3 Whether the counterclaim was sufficiently related to warrant a stay of proceedings
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge did not err: there was no genuine issue for trial in fact or law, the counterclaim was not sufficiently related to the promissory note enforcement claim to justify a stay, and no basis existed to grant a longer adjournment; therefore the appeal is dismissed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; motion judge's decision affirmed.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Costs to the respondent fixed at $5,059.20 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Cohen v. YMR Capital Management Corp. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-11-10 Docket numbers C45737 Judges Moldaver, Michael James; Simmons, Janet M.; Gillese, Eileen E. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20061109 DOCKET: C45737 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: JASON COHEN, JIC CONSULTANTS LIMITED carrying on business as COMPU-101 and IRIT COHEN (Respondents) – and – YMR CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP., ROTSHELD RAKHNAYEV also known as ROGER RAKHNAYEV and also known as ROSHA RAKHNAYEV, ELENA ABRAMOV, MICHAEL RAKHNAYEV, YURY RAKHNAYEV, and 2020494 ONTARIO INC. carrying on business as RBA FINANCIAL GROUP (Appellants) BEFORE: MOLDAVER, SIMMONS and GILLESE JJ.A. COUNSEL: George Corsianos for the appellants James Cook for the respondents HEARD & ENDORSED: November 7, 2006 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Edward Belobaba of The Superior Court of Justice dated June 29, 2006. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] We are not persuaded that the motion judge erred in refusing to grant a longer adjournment than he did. On the evidence before him, we are satisfied that he was correct in holding that there was no genuine issue for trial either in fact or law, and no basis on which to grant a stay. As for the stay, the counterclaim was not sufficiently related to the claim to enforce the promissory note to warrant a stay. The record before us has not been augmented. [2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $5,059.20 inclusive of G.S.T. and disbursements.