Court File and Parties

CITATION: Piccolo v. Piccolo (Sam's Auto Body Shop), 2011 ONCA 688

DATE: 20111104

DOCKET: C53448

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Goudge, Armstrong and Lang JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Sam Piccolo

Applicant (Appellant)

and

Anthony Piccolo, carrying on business as Sam’s Auto Body Shop

Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel: Raymond Colautti, for the appellant Claudio Martini, for the respondent

Heard: October 31, 2011

On appeal from the order of Justice Renee M. Pomerance of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 11, 2011.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We see no basis to interfere with the decision of Pomerance J.

[2] Unlike the Naneff case there has been no demand by the appellant for repayment of his shareholder’s loan, nor a finding that he has been oppressed, nor an order that the loan be repaid. The appellant’s oppression application does not seek repayment of his loan. Naneff does not provide a basis for interest in this case.

[3] Nor is there any equitable basis for entitlement to interest. There was no agreement to pay interest between the shareholders. Nor was the loan a result of an inspection of funds by the appellant. The master’s finding does not constitute an error in principle.

[4] Finally, the entitlement to interest cannot be founded on the concept of prejudgment interest. There has been no judgment on which to award interest.

[5] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent fixed at $9,000.