CITATION: Montesano v. Montesano, 2007 ONCA 177
DATE: 20070315
DOCKET: C45772
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
VITO MONTESANO, HIGHVIEW MANORS INC. (PHASE 3), MARYDEL HOMES (THORNHILL ESTATES) INC., WOODEL FLOORING INC. and VITMONT CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (Applicants/Respondents in the Appeal) v. GIOVANNI MONTESANO, MONTESANO CONSTUCTION LIMITED, JOE MONTESANO, YONGE-EAST HOMES INC., LOREDANA MONTESANO-ATTARDO, ATTAMONT CONSTRUCTION LTD., ANTHONY FERRARI, 528849 ONTARIO INC., BRAMORE ESTATES INC., HIGHVIEW MANORS INC. (PHASE 2), PRIMONT HOMES (BRAMPTON) INC., PRIMONT HOMES (KIRBY) INC., PRIMONT HOMES (MAJOR MACK) INC., PRIMONT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, PRIMONT HOMES (DECOR) INC., 778374 ONTARIO LTD. (Respondents/Appellants in the Appeal)
– AND BETWEEN –
GIOVANNI MONTESANO, JOE MONTESANO, LOREDANA MONTESANO-ATTARDO, TONY FERRARI, and PRIMONT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION (Plaintiffs/Appellants in the Appeal) v. VITO MONTESANO, ADELE MONTESANO, WOODEL FLOORING INC., and VITMONT CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (Defendants/Respondents in the Appeal)
BEFORE:
DOHERTY, MOLDAVER and MACPHERSON JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Douglas M. Cunningham
for the appellants
Gerald L.R. Ranking and Ian D. Collins
for the respondents
HEARD & ENDORSED:
March 15, 2007
On appeal from the order of Justice Nancy J. Spies of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 29, 2006.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] The motion judge’s reasons demonstrate that she carefully and fully addressed the factors relevant to the exercise of her discretion. We see no error in the exercise of her discretion. Nor have the appellants demonstrated any prejudice to their claims flowing from the order under appeal.
[2] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondents in the amount of $15,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and GST.