Matthew A. Biderman

The appellant appealed a summary judgment granted in favour of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting there was no legal relationship between the appellant and the respondent contractor to support a claim.

Furthermore, the respondent municipality was statutorily authorized to add the contractor's bill to the appellant's tax bill, and the appellant failed to provide more than a bald statement to challenge the amount.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding that Ontario had jurisdiction over it in the action.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasons or conclusion, noting that the appellant accepted all findings of fact and the motion judge considered all relevant factors in the governing test.