Skip to main content

minicounsel

Legal Resources Directory

/568

Grant v. Collingwood (Town), 2013 ONCA 568

September 17, 2013|Cited 2x

Grant v. Collingwood (Town), 2013 ONCA 568

Case Summary

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision finding he had no standing. The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the appellant was not bound by the Site Plan Agreement, a conclusion also agreed to by the respondent. The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $8,000.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Grant v. Collingwood (Town), 2013 ONCA 568

Date: 2013-09-17

Docket: C56877

Before: Weiler, Goudge and Rouleau JJ.A.

Between:

Gary Grant Appellant

and

The Town of Collingwood Respondent

Counsel:

Gary Grant in person P.J. Harrington for the respondent

Heard: September 13, 2013

On appeal from the judgment of Justice G.P. DiTomaso of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 21, 2013.

Appeal Book Endorsement

1It is clear from the reasons of the motion judge that the appellant is not bound by the Site Plan Agreement.

2Counsel for the respondent has confirmed that the Town of Collingwood agrees with the motion judge’s conclusion in this regard.

3In our view, therefore the motion judge’s finding that the appellant has no standing is correct.

4The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent are fixed in the amount of $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Cited By (2 cases)

SCJSuperior Court of JusticeJan 27, 2023

Superior Court of Justice

Superior Court of Justice

A motion to dismiss for lack of legal capacity was denied because an incorporated insurance company inherently possesses the capacity to sue.

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company sued Barry Marta and Lawson LLP for solicitor's negligence.

The lawyer defendants moved under Rule 21.01(3)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to have the action stayed or dismissed, arguing Wawanesa lacked legal capacity to sue, contending the claim was a subrogated action requiring the insured's name.

The court dismissed the motion, finding Wawanesa, as a licensed insurance company, possessed the legal capacity to commence the action, and that the motion under Rule 21.01(3)(b) was not for assessing the merits of the claim.

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company v. Marta, 2023 ONSC 692

SCJSuperior Court of JusticeMar 3, 2022

Superior Court of Justice

Superior Court of Justice

Motion to dismiss for lack of capacity denied due to unresolved factual disputes.

The defendants brought a cross-motion under Rule 21.01(3)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal capacity to commence or continue the action.

The defendants argued that the loan funds were not advanced by Scott Dorey, that the Dorey Capital Family Trust (DCFT) had conveyed its rights to the funds to other entities, and that Ora Trustees Limited had not proven its trusteeship.

The plaintiffs disputed these claims, asserting that Scott Dorey was a proper party, that no valid transfer of receivables occurred, or that they were transferred back to DCFT, and provided evidence of Ora's trusteeship.

The court applied the "plain and obvious" test for Rule 21 motions, noting that such motions are not for resolving serious factual disputes or credibility issues.

Given the numerous disputed facts and credibility determinations required regarding the alleged transfers of the loan receivable and the chain of trusteeship, the court dismissed the defendants' motion.

Ora Trustees Ltd., et al. v. Wade, et al., 2022 ONSC 1427

Showing 2 of 2 citing cases