COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
HEATHWOOD MANOR (RAGLAN) INC. (Applicant/Appellant/Respondent by way of cross‑appeal) – and CAROLYN VADUM (Respondent/Appellant by way of cross‑appeal)
BEFORE:
BORINS, FELDMAN JJ.A. and THEN J. (ad hoc)
COUNSEL:
Michael A. Spears
for Heathwood Manor (Raglan) Inc.
Gordon C. Vadum, Q.C.
for Carolyn Vadum
HEARD & ENDORSED:
February 27, 2004
On appeal from order of Justice Susan G. Himel of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 5, 2003.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1In dismissing the appellant’s application, Himel J. relied on the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. She found that in purchasing the unit the respondent relied on the words and conduct of the appellant’s manager, as the representative of the appellant, who provided the respondent with assurance that it was permissible for her to keep a dog in the unit. We are satisfied that Himel J. did not err in reaching this result.
2Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.