CITATION: Serebrennikov v. Powerup Inc. Electrical Contractors, 2016 ONSC 2579
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 532/14
DATE: 20160415
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
A.C.J.S.C. MARROCCO, L. A. PATTILLO AND D. A. BROAD JJ.
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL SEREBRENNIKOV o/a NEPTUN LIGHT Plaintiff (Appellant)
– and –
POWERUP INC. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, THE GREAT-WEST LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY and NEPTUN DISTRIBUTORS Defendants (Respondents)
Mark Wiffen, for the Plaintiff (Appellant)
Gregory N. Hemsworth, Defendants (Respondents)
HEARD at Toronto: April 15, 2016
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A.C.J.S.C. MARROCCO (ORALLY)
[1] The issue on this appeal is whether Spence J. erred in confirming the Master’s Report and upholding the Master’s Costs order. In that report the Master found that the contract for the supply of light fixtures was between Neptune Distributors (Distributors) and PowerUp Inc., Electrical Contractors (PowerUp).
[2] There was more than sufficient evidence to support the Master’s finding. For example, the initial discussions were between PowerUp and Neptune Distributors (Mr. Serebrennikov and Mr. Nicoletti). The August 24, 2012 email is from Distributors confirming an order of light fixtures. The September 21, 2012 email from PowerUp to Distributors requests an invoice prior to providing a cheque and confirms the number and price of the fixtures. The subsequent deposit cheque dated September 21, 2012 was initially made out to Distributors and changed to Neptune light (Light) at the request of Mr. Serebrennikov. The invoice bears the address of Distributors. Finally Mr. Talbot of PowerUp, whose evidence was accepted by the Master, testified that he always thought he was dealing with Distributors.
[3] Based upon that evidence, we are unable to find that Spence J. was incorrect in concluding that there was no error in principle or palpable and overriding factual error in the decision of Master Wiebe.
[4] Leave to appeal the costs order Spence J. is denied. We find no reason to believe that the order of Spence J. was an error in principle or a palpably and overridingly wrong, as a matter of fact.
COSTS
[5] I have endorsed the Appeal Book, “For oral reasons given today appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the amount of $7,000.00 all inclusive.”
A.C.J.S.C. MARROCCO
L.A. PATTILLO J.
D. A. BROAD J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 15, 2016
Date of Released: May 11, 2016
CITATION: Serebrennikov v. Powerup Inc. Electrical Contractors, 2016 ONSC 2579
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 532/14
DATE: 20160415
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
A.C.J.S.C. MARROCCO, L.A. PATTILLO AND D. A. BROAD JJ.
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL SEREBRENNIKOV o/a NEPTUN LIGHT Plaintiff (Appellant)
– and –
POWERUP INC. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS, THE GREAT-WEST LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY and NEPTUN DISTRIBUTORS Defendants (Respondents)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
A.C.J.S.C. MARROCCO
Date of Reasons for Judgment: April 15, 2016
Date of Released: May 11, 2016