DATE: 20051019

DOCKET: C39088

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: GURNAM SINGH also known as GURNAN SINGH (Plaintiff/Appellant) v. 1282439 ONTARIO LTD., 1255105 ONTARIO LIMITED, REMAX EXECUTIVE REALITY INC. (1996) and BRANKO KRSTEV (Defendants/Respondents)

BEFORE: DOHERTY, BORINS and LAFORME JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Richard Parker for the appellants

David Besant for 1282439 Ontario Ltd. and 1255105 Ontario Limited

HEARD & ENDORSED: October 18, 2005

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Molloy of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 15, 2002.

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

[1] We agree with the trial judge’s interpretation of para. 2(c) of the agreement. The terms of the liquor licence, a public document, were “generally known to the public” in that they could be learned through the exercise of due diligence.

[2] The trial judge found that the respondent did not make any misrepresentation as to the terms of the liquor licence. That was a finding of fact. We have not been offered any basis upon which to interfere with this finding.

[3] Even if the appellants should have been allowed to amend their pleadings to plead relief from forfeiture, there was no basis for granting that relief.

[4] We refuse leave to appeal costs.

[5] Appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $10,000 “all in”.