CITATION: Gestion Rodaki Inc. v. Laurier Optical Ltd., 2007 ONCA 206

DATE: 20070323

DOCKET: C45546

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

GESTION RODAKI INC., PAMIR FINANCIER INC., SOCIETE EN COMMANDITE ANIKVEST and SHIRAZ TAJDIN, carrying on business as HAWKESBURY CENTRE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Plaintiffs/Respondents) – and LAURIER OPTICAL LTD. (Defendant/Appellant) – and JULIE BOULANGER, PIERRE BROUSSEAU and 1172535 ONTARIO INC. (Third Parties/Respondents)

BEFORE:

GILLESE, ARMSTRONG and MACFARLAND JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Gary G. Boyd

for the appellant

Gerald E. Langlois

for the respondent

HEARD & ENDORSED:

March 22, 2007

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Alan D. Sheffield of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 6, 2006.

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

[1] In our view, the order must be set aside.

[2] First, given the many factual matters in dispute, this matter is not susceptible to a Rule 21 determination.

[3] Second, there is overwhelming confusion in respect of the parties. It would appear that Laurier Optical Limited, the supposed defendant, does not exist. 990982 Ontario Inc. is not a party but the proceedings appear to have been conducted on the basis that it is. Further, there are a variety of numbered companies who are associated with this matter and who might be capable of being found to be carrying on business as Laurier Optical, whether or not at the location in question. Not all of those numbered companies are parties either.

[4] Third, in light of the confusion over who might be the tenant, the questions as posed in the Rule 21 motion could not be answered.

[5] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs to the appellant fixed at $3000, all inclusive.