Sirron Systems Inc. v. North America Construction, 2010 ONSC 873
CITATION: Sirron Systems Inc. v. North America Construction, 2010 ONSC 873
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 45/10
DATE: 20100204
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
SIRRON SYSTEMS INC.
Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
NORTH AMERICA CONSTRUCTION (1993) LTD., DENIS GAGNON SYLVIO GAGNON, GORDON LINDSAY, SYLVIO CORSINI and SCOTT MCPHERSON
Defendants (Appellants)
Paul H. Starkman and Samuel Yoon, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)
Patrick Schindler, for the Defendants (Appellants)
HEARD at Toronto: February 4, 2010
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J. (orally)
[1] This is a motion brought by the defendants for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from the decision of Matlow J. setting aside an order of Master Haberman requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs.
[2] The decision of Matlow J. is a handwritten endorsement that is approximately eight sentences in length.
[3] Counsel for the moving parties has, with considerable ingenuity, identified eleven issues of law that he says arise from this brief decision and merit the attention of the Divisional Court.
[4] In my view, whether or not Matlow J. erred in overturning the decision of the Master, a question upon which I express no opinion, his decision is a commonplace one, based, for the most part, on well-settled law in relation to which there are no conflicting decisions.
[5] Counsel for the moving parties does raise an interesting issue about the proper place for consideration of the merits of the plaintiff’s claim in a motion for security for costs. He argues that the cases on this issue arise from a flawed analysis in Padnos v. Luminart Inc. (1996), 32 O.R. (3d) 120, and continue with another flawed analysis in Guirmag Investments Inc. v. Milan, [1999] 43 C.P.C. (4th) 113, and that the wrong-headed approach in those cases has been followed in still other cases.
[6] Assuming that that is an issue of significance, this is not the appropriate vehicle for the Divisional Court to review it. The issue was not squarely raised before the Master or before Matlow J., and neither decision addresses it.
[7] In the end, the moving parties’ real complaint is that in their view, the decision of Matlow J. flies in the face of well settled law. That may be so, but it does not give rise to an issue that merits the attention of the Divisional Court.
[8] The brief handwritten decision of Matlow J., which contains no analysis of the law, has no importance other than to the parties.
[9] The motion for leave to appeal is dismissed.
[10] Costs to the respondent in the amount of $5,500.00.
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 4, 2010
Date of Release: February 16, 2010
CITATION: Sirron Systems Inc. v. North America Construction, 2010 ONSC 873
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 45/10
DATE: 20100204
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
SIRRON SYSTEMS INC.
Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
NORTH AMERICA CONSTRUCTION (1993) LTD., DENIS GAGNON SYLVIO GAGNON, GORDON LINDSAY, SYLVIO CORSINI and SCOTT MCPHERSON
Defendants (Appellants)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 4, 2010
Date of Release: February 16, 2010