Li v. Baksh
Because the parties agreed and the court was satisfied the draft order reflected the correct disposition on the merits, the appeal was allowed and the judgment was varied in accordance with the draft order.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2021 ONCA 502
- Parties
- Appellant: Zhi Jiang Li; Respondent: Fiaz Sayad Baksh
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 8 July 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal (judgment Varied by Consent)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; judgment varied in accordance with draft order filed by the parties.
- Legal Topics
- Settlement, Consent Order, Variation of Judgment
- 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
Zhi Jiang Li
Appellant
Fiaz Sayad Baksh
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal (judgment Varied by Consent)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appeal should be allowed and the judgment varied in accordance with the draft order filed by the parties
Ratio Decidendi
Because the parties agreed and the court was satisfied the draft order reflected the correct disposition on the merits, the appeal was allowed and the judgment was varied in accordance with the draft order.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; judgment varied in accordance with draft order filed by the parties.
Orders
- Appeal allowed; order to go in the terms of the draft order filed by the parties.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Li v. Baksh Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2021-07-08 Neutral citation 2021 ONCA 502 Docket numbers C69179 Judges Doherty, David H.; Benotto, Mary Lou; Brown, David M. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Li v. Baksh, 2021 ONCA 502 DATE: 20210708 DOCKET: C69179 Doherty, Benotto and Brown JJ.A. BETWEEN Zhi Jiang Li Plaintiff (Appellant) and Fiaz Sayad Baksh Defendant (Respondent) David Fogel, for the appellant Fiaz Sayad Baksh, acting in person for the respondent Heard: June 25, 2021 by video conference On appeal from the judgment of Justice Sharon Lavine of the Superior Court of Justice, dated February 11, 2021. REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The court adjourned this appeal to allow the parties an opportunity to reach a settlement. We are advised a settlement has been reached, although the parties have reached that settlement in a somewhat different manner than was anticipated. [2] The parties agree the appeal should be allowed and the judgment varied in accordance with the draft order filed by the parties. We are satisfied the terms of the proposed order reflect the correct disposition of the appeal on the merits. [3] Consequently, the appeal is allowed, order to go in the terms of the draft order filed. “Doherty J.A.” “M.L. Benotto J.A.” “David Brown J.A.”