CITATION: Tuffhide Products, LLC v. Rhino Systems of Canada Inc., 2007 ONCA 404
DATE: 20070528
DOCKET: C45375
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
SIMMONS, CRONK and BLAIR JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
TUFFHIDE PRODUCTS, LLC and JAMES R. DIEFENTHAL
Respondents/Plaintiffs
and
RHINO SYSTEMS OF CANADA INC. and DRAGOLUB BILBIJA
Appellants/Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
RHINO SYSTEMS OF CANADA INC. and DRAGOLUB BILBIJA
Appellants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
and
TUFFHIDE PRODUCTS, LLC, JAMES R. DIEFENTHAL and DIEFENTHAL INVESTMENTS, LLC
Respondents/Defendants by Counterclaim
David G. Boghosian and Avril Allen for the appellants
Eric R. Fournie and Caroline Jimdar for the respondents
Heard and Released Orally: May 18, 2007
On appeal from the judgment of Justice N.J. Spies of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting without a jury, dated April 3, 2006.
ORAL ENDORSEMENT
[1] The trial judge in this case gave thorough and careful reasons, analyzing the evidence regarding each issue in detail in support of her factual findings. Moreover, in respect of many – although not all – issues, the trial judge’s factual findings were coupled with express credibility findings adverse to the appellants. We see no palpable and over-riding error in her challenged findings. Thus, appellate intervention is precluded.
[2] With respect particularly to the issue of the alleged confidential information used by the respondents, the appellants say that the trial judge misdirected herself on the applicable legal principles by focusing on the question of who owned the information in issue. We reject this argument.
[3] The appellants’ evidence at trial was that the Rhino formula was owned by a company called Rhino Barbados. The trial judge found that the ownership of Rhino Barbados was not established on the evidence adduced at trial. Thus, notwithstanding that the respondents received the information in issue, there was no proof that either of the appellants had the legal right to compel its return to them. We simply do not accept the appellants’ assertion that the lack of proof of ownership of the information at issue is irrelevant. In our view, it is highly relevant for the reasons advanced by the trial judge at paras. 211 – 220 of her reasons.
[4] We also note concerning this issue that there appears to have been no evidence led by the appellants to establish that they were the authorized agents of Rhino Barbados for the purpose of seeking the return of the information in issue from the respondents.
[5] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
[6] The respondents are entitled to their costs of the appeal on the partial indemnity scale, fixed in the total amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.
“Janet Simmons J.A.”
“E.A. Cronk J.A.”
“R.A. Blair J.A.”