Court File and Parties
CITATION: Demasi Contracting Inc. v. Tarion Warranty Corporation, 2011 ONSC 219
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 135/09
DATE: 20110110
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, ASTON AND HERMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
DEMASI CONTRACTING INC.
Appellant
– and –
TARION WARRANTY CORPORATION
Respondent
Brian M. Campbell, for the Appellant
Carol Street, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: January 10, 2011
Oral Reasons for Judgment
JENNINGS J. (ORALLY)
[1] The moving party wishes to submit evidence of incidents arising following the hearing and decision of the tribunal. Counsel submits we need to consider the fresh evidence only if we are inclined to allow the appeal.
[2] In our opinion, the appeal should be from the record which was before the tribunal. Conduct occurring after the decision is a matter for the tribunal to consider. We are not to usurp the tribunal’s role and in effect try the matter in this court.
[3] In our opinion, this is not one of those rare cases where evidence of post-hearing events must be admitted to prevent an obvious and substantial injustice.
[4] Costs to be dealt with following the hearing of the appeal.
JENNINGS J.
ASTON J.
HERMAN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 10, 2011
Date of Release: January 12, 2011
CITATION: Demasi Contracting Inc. v. Tarion Warranty Corporation, 2011 ONSC 219
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 135/09
DATE: 20110110
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
JENNINGS, ASTON AND HERMAN JJ.
BETWEEN:
DEMASI CONTRACTING INC.
Appellant
– and –
TARION WARRANTY CORPORATION
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JENNINGS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 10, 2011
Date of Release: January 12, 2011