Court of Appeal for Ontario

Rowe v. TCL Tele-Communications Limited

Date: 2000-04-27

Albert Campea, for the defendants/appellants;

Counsel for the plaintiff not disclosed.

(C31898)

[1] By the Court: The only live issue in this appeal was whether the evidence supported the trial judge's finding that the appellant Hennig had induced the respondent to advance moneys to the appellant corporation by a fraudulent misrepresentation. It is conceded that the trial judge applied the appropriate four part test enunciated by Lord Atkinson in United Shoe Manufacturing Co. v. Brunet, [1909] A.C. 330 (P.C.), at p. 338 [P.C.], The trial judge's findings in each of the four criteria are supported by the evidence and we would not interfere with them.

[2] The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.