Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Goudge, Armstrong and Lang JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Sam Piccolo
Applicant (Appellant)
and
Anthony Piccolo, carrying on business as Sam’s Auto Body Shop
Respondent (Respondent)
Counsel: Raymond Colautti, for the appellant Claudio Martini, for the respondent
Heard: October 31, 2011
On appeal from the order of Justice Renee M. Pomerance of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 11, 2011.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
1We see no basis to interfere with the decision of Pomerance J.
2Unlike the Naneff case there has been no demand by the appellant for repayment of his shareholder’s loan, nor a finding that he has been oppressed, nor an order that the loan be repaid. The appellant’s oppression application does not seek repayment of his loan. Naneff does not provide a basis for interest in this case.
3Nor is there any equitable basis for entitlement to interest. There was no agreement to pay interest between the shareholders. Nor was the loan a result of an inspection of funds by the appellant. The master’s finding does not constitute an error in principle.
4Finally, the entitlement to interest cannot be founded on the concept of prejudgment interest. There has been no judgment on which to award interest.
5The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $9,000.
