CITATION: Pilon v. Smartech Installations, 2016 ONSC 551
COURT FILE NO.: DV-978-14
DATE: 20160121
ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Yvan Rolland Pilon
Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
Smartech Installations
Defendant (Appellant)
– and –
Newcap Radio (Rewind 103.9) aka Rewind 103.9
Unrepresented
Réjean Parisé, for the Defendant (Appellant)
Jordan E. Duplessis, for the Defendant (Respondent)
Defendat (Respondent)
HEARD: January 8, 2016
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
J. WILCOX
INTRODUCTION
[1] The defendant Smartech Installations Limited (Smartech) appealed the decision of Deputy Judge Michael S. Mensour dated Aug. 8, 2014. The Plaintiff, Yvan Rolland Pilon (Pilon) responded. The defendant NewCap Radio (Rewind 103.9) aka Rewind 103.9 (Newcap) did not, and took no part in the appeal proceedings. The appeal was heard on January 8, 2016.
[2] The case arose from a contest held by Newcap. Smartech was one of the contest sponsors. Pilon won the contest, but was unable to collect his prize from Smartech.
[3] Pilon sued Smartech and Newcap in Small Claims Court. Both defended.
[4] Smartech counter-claimed against Pilon and cross-claimed against Newcap for breach of contract. Both defended.
[5] Newcap counter-claimed against Pilon and cross-claimed against Smartech for contribution and indemnity.
[6] At trial, the Deputy Judge found there was a contract between Pilon and Smartech. He gave judgment to Pilon against Smartech for $25,000.00. Smartech and Newcap’s cross-claims and counter-claims were dismissed. Smartech was to pay costs to both Pilon and Newcap.
[7] The Notice of Appeal sought to have the judgment set aside and judgment granted in favour of Smartech or, in the alternative, a new trial.
[8] The main ground for appeal was that the trial judge erred in law in finding that there was a contract between Pilon and Smartech. Appellant’s counsel noted, correctly in my opinion, that the trial judge provided no analysis to support the existence of a contract. So, it is not apparent how that conclusion was reached.
[9] There were two other contracts, counsel submitted, these being between Newcap and Smartech, and between Pilon and Newcap, but the plaintiff had no privity in the one with Smartech, and it is a fundamental principle of law that only a party to a contract can sue on it and get judgment.
ANALYSIS
[10] I agree. The trial judge appears to have erred in law in finding a contract between Pilon and Smartech. If there is a proper legal basis for this finding, it was not articulated. The failure to give sufficient reasons to justify and explain the result or to permit meaningful appellant review of the correctness of the decision is in itself grounds for appeal.[^1]
[11] For these reasons I would set aside the decision of Aug. 8, 2014 and order a new trial.
[12] I would add that this is a very unfortunate result. Although the amount of money at stake is significant for the parties, it is relatively small as legal cases go. The issues are legal ones more than factual ones, and not easily dealt with by unrepresented litigants. The cost of counsel to deal with them could quickly become out of proportion to the amount in question. In view of this, the court interrupted the hearing to give the parties an opportunity to resolve the dispute in a mutually acceptable way. Unfortunately, they were unable to agree, and the hearing continued.
Justice J. A. S. Wilcox
Released: January 21, 2016
CITATION: Pilon v. Smartech Installations, 2016 ONSC 551
COURT FILE NO.: DV-978-14
DATE: 20160121
ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Yvan Rolland Pilon
Plaintiff (Respondent)
– and –
Smartech Installations
Defendant (Appellant)
– and –
Newcap Radio (Rewind 103.9) aka Rewind 103.9
Defendat (Respondent)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Justice J. Wilcox
Released: January 21, 2016
[^1]: R. v. R.E.M. 2008 SCC 51, [2008] S.C.J. No.52