DATE: 20040227

DOCKET: C40302

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

HEATHWOOD MANOR (RAGLAN) INC. (Applicant/Appellant/Respondent by way of cross‑appeal) – and CAROLYN VADUM (Respondent/Appellant by way of cross‑appeal)

BEFORE:

BORINS, FELDMAN JJ.A. and THEN J. (ad hoc)

COUNSEL:

Michael A. Spears

for Heathwood Manor (Raglan) Inc.

Gordon C. Vadum, Q.C.

for Carolyn Vadum

HEARD & ENDORSED:

February 27, 2004

On appeal from order of Justice Susan G. Himel of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 5, 2003.

A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] In dismissing the appellant’s application, Himel J. relied on the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. She found that in purchasing the unit the respondent relied on the words and conduct of the appellant’s manager, as the representative of the appellant, who provided the respondent with assurance that it was permissible for her to keep a dog in the unit. We are satisfied that Himel J. did not err in reaching this result.

[2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.