Court File and Parties

CITATION: More & More AG v. P.Y.A. Importer Ltd., 2010 ONCA 771

DATE: 20101115

DOCKET: C52126

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Feldman, Juriansz and LaForme JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

More & More AG

Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)

And

P.Y.A. Importer Ltd.

Respondent (Appellant)

Counsel: Antonin I. Pribetic, for the appellant Doug Bourassa, for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: November 9, 2010 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Michael G. Quigley of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 20, 2010.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant’s position on this appeal is that the service on his client by serving the receptionist was not in accordance with the Hague Convention. However, this is a factual issue which turns on whether the receptionist was in control of the business at the time. There was no evidence before the motion judge that she was not. Counsel for the respondent also submits that had the factual issue been raised properly, he would have sought to also put evidence before the court. In our view, on the record before the motion judge, he made no error in his view that service was proper and there is no basis for this court to interfere.

[2] The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs fixed at $5,900 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.