Court of Appeal for Ontario

CITATION: 1365657 Ontario Limited v. Milton (Town), 2009 ONCA 694

DATE: 20091002

DOCKET: C50208

BEFORE: Goudge, Juriansz and LaForme JJ.A.

BETWEEN

1365657 Ontario Limited

Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

The Corporation of the Town of Milton and Howden & Sons Ltd.

Defendants (Respondents)

COUNSEL:

Neil Searles and Lou Ciotoli, for the appellant

J. Murray Davison, Q.C. and Matthew A. Biderman, for the respondent Corporation of the Town of Milton

Peter M. Callahan, for the respondent Howden & Sons Ltd.

Heard & released orally: September 29, 2009

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Michael G. Quigley of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 24, 2009.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] We were not persuaded that the motion judge made any error in granting summary judgment to the defendants in this case.

[2] The motion judge was correct that there is no legal relationship between the appellant and the respondent Howden & Sons Ltd. that could serve as a basis of a claim. Therefore there is no genuine issue for trial against this respondent.

[3] The appellant recognizes that the Town of Milton was authorized by statute to add the amount it paid to Howden & Sons Ltd. to the appellant’s tax bill. That was enough to satisfy the burden on the Town of Milton to support its summary judgment motion. Assuming, as the motion judge accepted in principle, that the appellant should be able to challenge the size of the bill that the town added to its tax bill, the motion judge was correct that the appellant, to counter the town’s summary judgement motion, provided a response that was nothing more than a bald statement.

[4] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondents in the amount of $3,500 each all in.

“S.T. Goudge J.A.”

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”

“H.S. LaForme J.A.”