COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: GURNAM SINGH also known as GURNAN SINGH (Plaintiff/Appellant) v. 1282439 ONTARIO LTD., 1255105 ONTARIO LIMITED, REMAX EXECUTIVE REALITY INC. (1996) and BRANKO KRSTEV (Defendants/Respondents)
BEFORE: DOHERTY, BORINS and LAFORME JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Richard Parker for the appellants
David Besant for 1282439 Ontario Ltd. and 1255105 Ontario Limited
HEARD & ENDORSED: October 18, 2005
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Molloy of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 15, 2002.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1We agree with the trial judge’s interpretation of para. 2(c) of the agreement. The terms of the liquor licence, a public document, were “generally known to the public” in that they could be learned through the exercise of due diligence.
2The trial judge found that the respondent did not make any misrepresentation as to the terms of the liquor licence. That was a finding of fact. We have not been offered any basis upon which to interfere with this finding.
3Even if the appellants should have been allowed to amend their pleadings to plead relief from forfeiture, there was no basis for granting that relief.
4We refuse leave to appeal costs.
5Appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $10,000 “all in”.