CITATION: Boyce Estate v. 2113626 Ontario Inc. (Hampton Inn and Suites), 2025 ONSC 3844

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-00000834-00SR

DATE: 2025-06-30

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

THE ESTATE OF ELIZABETH BOYCE

Courtney Boyd, for the Plaintiff

Plaintiff

– and –

2113626 ONTARIO INC. c.o.b. as

Stephen Schwartz, for the Defendants

HAMPTON INN AND SUITES and

DANNY BAWA

Defendants

HEARD: April 16, 2025 at Brantford

(virtually)

A. SPURGEON, J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction – Nature of the Motions Before the Court

1Before the court are two motions wherein each of the plaintiff and the defendants seek summary judgment.

2The plaintiff was a hotel manager who was hired in 2009 on a minimum three-year contract to serve as the manager of the Hampton Inn and Suites in Brantford, Ontario ( “Hampton Inn”).

3Approximately five months into the contract, she was terminated. She commenced a claim, separate to this one, against a numbered company: 2170990 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Hampton Inn and Suites ( “217”) which she alleged in that proceeding was her employer.

4Ms. Elizabeth Boyce subsequently passed away. The claim is being carried forward through her estate.

5217 admitted in its statement of defence in the prior proceeding that it indeed was the plaintiff’s employer. The plaintiff then obtained an unopposed judgment against 217 in the amount of $120,000.

6The plaintiff, however, was then unable to execute on that judgment. She looked for an entity or entities which were related to 217 that had asserts upon which to execute. The plaintiff identified two target defendants and issued the present action against the defendants, 2113626 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Hampton Inn and Suites (“211”) and Danny Bawa.

7217 and 211 as well as Danny Bawa are clearly related to each other in respect of the operation of Hampton Inn. 211 and 217 are companies which are owned and controlled by members of the Bawa family, led by its patriarch, Tejwant Bawa (“Tej”).

8Tej and his wife, Gurinder, have two children, Gary and Danny, who are, to varying degrees, involved in the business. The facts on this point will be canvassed more thoroughly below.

A. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment

9The plaintiff in this proceeding alleges that 217 and 211 as well as Danny Bawa are all members of an interrelated group of companies and individuals who, pursuant to the common employer doctrine, viewed objectively, intended to create an employer/employee relationship between and among the plaintiff and all of them together.

10On this footing, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment against 211 and Danny Bawa for wrongfully dismissing the plaintiff and breaching the fixed-term contract of employment along with 217, against which she already has judgment.

B. The Defendants’ Motion for Judgment

11The defendants, 211 and Danny Bawa, assert that the plaintiff’s claim should be summarily dismissed on two substantive grounds:

a. The issue of liability for wrongful dismissal of the plaintiff is res judicata by application of two doctrines of law, specifically: cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel. The plaintiff already has a final judgment against 217 for breach of the employment contract. She is estopped from pursuing further relief; and

b. Neither 211 or Danny Bawa were common employers of the plaintiff along with

217. They assert that there is “no evidence of an actual intention to create an employer/employee relationship between the individual and the respective corporations within the group”.¹ Consequently, the plaintiff’s claim against 211 and Danny Bawa must fail.

Outcome – Judgment Summarized

12For the reasons set out herein,

a. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and claim against 2113626 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Hampton Inn and Suites is granted.

b. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and claim against Danny Bawa is dismissed.

c. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the estate of Elizabeth Boyce is dismissed.

Facts and History

A. Setting Up the Hampton Inn and Corporate Structures

13Tej Bawa and his family ran a family business which, among other things built, owned, and operated a Hampton Inn located in Brantford, Ontario. The Bawa family did this through different corporations in which various members of the family were directors and officers. The primary companies through which the business Hampton Inn was conducted were:

a. 2113626 Ontario Inc. created on September 18, 2006. In the articles of incorporation, Tej Bawa is identified as the sole director. The corporate profile however, features Tej Bawa and his wife, Gurinder, as the listed directors and/or administrators of the company; and

b. 2170990 Ontario Inc., created on April 28, 2008. Gary Bawa, as well as his mother, Gurinder, are listed as the corporate directors on the corporate profile presented. However, the defendant Danny Bawa states in an affidavit that he was the only officer and shareholder of that company.

14The evidence of Danny Bawa is that 211 was created to buy the land, develop, and build the Hampton Inn on property located at 20 Fen Ridge Court, Brantford, Ontario, while 217 was created to operate the Hampton Inn and Suites hotel business as a lessee of 211 in the premises at 20 Fen Ridge Court.

15Danny Bawa and Tej Bawa asserted in their evidence that they (217 and 211) were two corporations that were separate and apart and not responsible or liable for each other’s business or undertakings.

B. The Offer of Employment

16After a series of interviews, the plaintiff received an offer of employment by way of letter dated August 23, 2009. The letter said:

Hamilton/Brantford Hampton Inn & Suites 20 Fen Ridge Ct., Brantford, ON, Canada

tel: 519.720.0084

fax: 519.720.0668

Date August 23-09

Letter of appointment

We are pleased to offer you a job as Director of sales and marketing at our Newest hotel Hampton inn & Suites, Brantford. Terms of the job as follows:

1. Unlimited maximum years and Minimum of three years.

2. Base salary of $45,000.00 yearly paid in biweekly basis.

3. First year bonus of 3% over the collective gross revenue of the Hotel of $2,000,000.00.

4. Years later/after 3% over revenue amount of the previous year’s revenue.

5. Will not get another job in the area hotels around 30 KM radius of the Hampton inn Brantford Hotel.

Your start date is September 07, 2009

Welcome to Hampton Inn & Suites & Good Luck [signed] [signed]

Elizabeth Boyce Danny Bawa

[Address and phone number] Director

Hampton inn & Suites [Address and phone number]

17The plaintiff, as demonstrated by her signature, accepted that offer of employment.

18It is to be noted that the countersigned letter of employment constituted a contract of employment that did not identify any particular corporate entity as the plaintiff’s employer. A reasonable person would assume that the employer would be what is styled on the letterhead: “Hamilton/Brantford Hampton Inn & Suites 20 Fen Ridge Ct., Brantford, ON, Canada.”

19After the plaintiff commenced employment as the director of sales and marketing at the Brantford Hampton Inn, the plaintiff’s paycheques and pay stubs denoted that she received her salary from 217.

C. The Termination of Employment and Prior Litigation

20The plaintiff’s employment was terminated by the employer on or about January 8, 2010. In the record of employment (“ROE”) filed by the employer with Service Canada, the employer is denoted as 217. The reason cited in the ROE for termination was: “A –

Shortage of Work / End of contract or season.” ²

21The employer contact person and the insurer identified in the ROE was Tej Bawa, not Danny Bawa. It is to be noted that Tej Bawa is not listed as a director, administrator, or officer in the corporate profile for 217.

22After termination, the plaintiff commenced an action against 217 for wrongful dismissal. She subsequently obtained summary judgment, which was unopposed. She, however, was unable to realize upon that judgment.

23The plaintiff then commenced this claim alleging that 217 and 211 along with Danny Bawa were common employers with joint and several liability for her wrongful dismissal. In an affidavit sworn on June 8, 2012, the plaintiff said:

When my motion for summary judgment against 217 was not opposed in October of 2011, I became concerned that the Defendants were reorganizing their affairs to avoid liability to me, and it appears that is exactly what they did.

24It is for this reason that the present case was commenced by the plaintiff.

25In the present proceeding, the defendant Danny Bawa tendered a document which purported to be a “job confirmation” letter which he said had been sent to the plaintiff. That document said:

Hamilton/Brantford Hampton Inn & Suites 20 Fen Ridge Ct. Brantford, ON, Canada

tel: 519.720.0084

fax: 519.720.0668

September 02, 2009

Elizabeth Boyce

[Address and phone number]

Job Confirmation

2170990 Ontario Inc. confirms your employment as Director of Sales and Marketing, at the hotel and 2170990 Ontario Inc. will be your employer and this company will be paying your salary and also responsible for any legal obligations.

Thanks,

[signed]

Danny Bawa Director

2170990 Ontario Inc.

20 Fen Ridge Court

Brantford, Ontario N3V 1G2

26This letter was tendered in an affidavit by the defendant Danny Bawa as evidence purporting to show that the contractual employment relationship the plaintiff had with Hampton Inn was exclusively with 217.

27The plaintiff in her June 8, 2012 affidavit specifically denied that she ever saw or received the September 02, 2009 job confirmation letter.

28The September 02, 2009 letter, unlike the August 23, 2009 job confirmation letter, was not counter-signed by the plaintiff. Such would have demonstrated her knowledge of the content of the letter.

29The defendant Danny Bawa during cross-examination asserted that, nevertheless, he indeed did provide the September 02, 2009 letter to the plaintiff, and as evidence of that, he advised that it was his habit to record in his personal journal information concerning his regular business dealings. He said he recorded the occurrence of providing the September 02, 2009 letter to the plaintiff in his journal or diary. However, he did not provide a copy of that allegedly contemporaneous note from his journal supporting his assertion.

D. The Interrelation of 217 and 211 as Components of the Bawa Family Business

30Danny Bawa and Tej Bawa gave evidence that 217 and 211 maintained a strict separation between them. They were not companies designed, nor structured, to operate as a common enterprise. Rather, they say that 211 effectively owned the land upon and the building in which the Hampton Inn was situate while 217 exclusively operated the hotel business as a tenant in the property. They maintain 211 had no role whatsoever in the operation and management of the hotel business itself. That function, they submit, was exercised exclusively by 217.

31A review of certain material documents supports a contrary assertion.

a. The use of the business name “Hampton Inn & Suites” is derived and permitted from a franchise arrangement. Publicly available documents tendered by the plaintiff show that it is 211, not 217, that is the named franchisee connected with the operation of the business of the Hampton Inn & Suites in Brantford.

b. A business name search shows that the business style “Hampton Inn & Suites By Hilton Brantford Conference Centre” is registered to 211, not 217.

c. The LLBO liquor sales licence issued on December 11, 2009 (during the employment of the defendant), permitting the sale of liquor on the premises of the Hampton Inn and Suites at 20 Fen Ridge Court in Brantford was issued to 211, not

217. This would, on its face, demonstrate that 211 (not 217) was responsible for generating operational revenue from alcohol sales at the hotel at the material time.

d. The HST number for the Hampton Inn & Suites in Brantford in 2010 was registered to 211, not 217. This would indicate that 211 (not 217) was generating taxable revenue, and liable for tax remittances from sales through the hotel’s operation of its hospitality business at the material time when the plaintiff was employed by Hampton Inn and Suites in Brantford.

E. The Present Proceeding

32For the purpose of this proceeding, two factual points are acknowledged and accepted by the defendants:

a. First, that there was a breach of the plaintiff’s employment contract.

b. Second, that the damages suffered by the plaintiff have been quantified in the sum of $120,000.

33If the defendants 211 and Danny Bawa are found to be common employers of the plaintiff along with 217, the foregoing factual determinations of fact apply to them.

The Issues and Law

A. The Test for Summary Judgment

34The source of this form of relief is r. 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg.

194. The operative provision for our purposes is r. 20.04(2)(a) which says: The court shall grant summary judgment if,

(a) the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial with respect to a claim or defence;

35Disposal of a case by way of summary judgment is available in circumstances where the interests of justice do not require a full trial.

36In Hryniak v. Mauldin,³ the Supreme Court indicated that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment which is the case when the process:

a. allows the judge to make the necessary findings of fact;

b. allows the judge to apply the laws to the facts; and

c. is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.

37If after considering this, without utilizing the enhanced fact-finding powers set forth in r. 20.04(2.1), there appears to be a genuine issue requiring a trial, the court must then determine if a trial can be avoided by using the enhanced powers under r. 20.04(2.1).⁴ These enhanced powers enable a judge to:

a. Weigh evidence;

b. Evaluate the credibility of a deponent; and

c. Draw any reasonable inferences from the evidence.

38These fact-finding powers may be used where they serve the goals of timeliness, affordability, and proportionality.⁵

39The court is persuaded that it is capable of weighing evidence, evaluating credibility of the deponents, drawing reasonable inferences, finding necessary facts, and applying law to those facts with the record before it without resorting to a trial.

B. The Common Employer Doctrine Issue Outlined

40The estate trustee of the late plaintiff advances their motion arguing that 211 and Danny Bawa are common employers of the plaintiff with 217.

41In circumstances of breach of employment contracts or wrongful dismissal, there are circumstances where an employee may look to multiple defendants for relief under the common employer doctrine. This doctrine recognizes that an employee may simultaneously have more than one employer. The effect of it is that if one employer is impecunious, other related employers may not be, thereby offering the terminated employee the opportunity of obtaining relief.

42This doctrine may expand liability for wrongful dismissal to more than one primary employer if the target (secondary) employer is part of an interrelated corporate group which the evidence objectively demonstrates an intention to create an employer/employee relationship between the employee and the related corporations.⁶

43The test for determining application of the common employer doctrine is a two-part test:

a. First, the court must determine whether there is a significant degree of interrelationship and common control between or among the alleged common employers; and

b. Second, the court must assess whether the employee held a reasonable expectation that the other companies or entities were party to their employment contract.⁷

44When employers establish complex corporate structures and relationships, the law should be vigilant to ensure permissible complexity, yet not allow them to evade responsibility to dismissed employees by imposition of employment contracts upon employees with nominee shell companies with no assets.⁸

45The first prong in the two-part test is a factual determination of inter-relationship among the allege employer group of entities.

46The second prong is more complicated. The determination of “intention to contract” is objective. What is relevant is “how each party’s conduct would appear to a reasonable person in the position of the other party.”⁹

47The conduct most germane in showing that there was an intention among two or more members of an interrelated corporate group to form an employment relationship with an employee of one of them is conduct wherein the group had control over such matters as:

a. the selection of employees;

b. payment of wages;

c. method of work; and

d. ability to dismiss.¹⁰

48The defendants 211 and Danny Bawa resist the plaintiff’s motion, asserting:

a. On the first prong of the two-part test, 211 and 217 are not related entities. Further, Danny Bawa is certainly not either.

b. Moreover, on the second prong of the two-part test, there is no evidence in the record of objective behaviour on their behalf which would cause a reasonable person to think they were intending, along with 217, to form an employment relationship with the plaintiff.

49On this basis, the defendants seek a dismissal of the plaintiff’s motion for judgment and claim.

C. Analysis and Determination – Common Employer Issue

i. The First Prong – Interrelationship of Entities

50It is clear that 217 and 211 are related companies which were operated by the Bawa family for the purpose of operating the Hampton Inn hotel business in Brantford.

51The effective division of functions as among the companies appears to be on an axis of revenue and assets on one side with expenditure and liability on the other. 211 held:

a. the liquor licence for the business. That is an asset which enables the hotel business to generate revenue and to make money;

b. the right to use the Hampton Inn & Suites trademarks and marketing network. That also is an asset which enables the hotel business to make money; and

c. the GST/HST number for the Brantford Hampton Inn. This, though it creates liability, also is an asset which enables the hotel business to legally charge clients and generate revenue, thereby enabling the enterprise to make money.

52On the liability side of the operation, 217 paid out expenses for employees like the plaintiff. It apparently operated as the paymaster within the integrated framework of the two corporations set up to operate the hotel.

53It is clear that 211 was not just a land developer and landlord of the premises in which 217 operated – which is what Tej Bawa and Danny Bawa assert in their evidence.

54What is apparent is that 217 was designated as a corporate paymaster operating in conjunction with 211 within the business operation framework of the Bawa family hotel business. Its function was to shield the business from certain liabilities, such as for employment termination damages.

55On the first prong of the test applicable to the common employer doctrine, it is clear from the evidence in this case that the Bawa family hotel business was structured through the use of two interrelated corporations (211 and 217) which had interlinking and overlapping control and were both involved in the business operations of the Brantford Hampton Inn & Suites as an ongoing hotel business operation. These arrangements are strikingly similar to the framework through which the employers operated in the factual matrix outlined in Downtown Eatery.¹¹

ii. The Second Prong – Objective Intention to Create Employer/Employee Relationship

a. Among 217 and 211

56The second prong of the test concerns whether there is evidence showing on the balance of probabilities whether there is an objective intention to form an employment relationship among the plaintiff (employee) and target group of defendants (employers).

57On the face of the evidence, it is clear that both 217 and 211 intended to create an employer/employee relationship with the plaintiff, Ms. Boyce. The court draws this conclusion because of the following:

a. The August 23, 2009 job confirmation letter which was countersigned by the plaintiff was on letterhead showing the employer as the Brantford “Hampton Inn & Suites” and at that moment,

i. No specific corporation was designated as “the employer” to the exclusion of any other; and

ii. 211 was the corporate entity which was entitled, pursuant to franchise documents, to use the “Hampton Inn & Suites” business style in relation to the Brantford hotel operation.

b. The choice of the Bawa family, in the operation of their hotel business, to pay the plaintiff through their 217 corporate entity suggests that 217 was also intended by the controlling minds of 217 and 211 to have it (217) too be a privy of that employment relationship along with 211.

c. Tej Bawa was designated as the insurer and contact person of 217, the identified employer in the ROE submitted to Service Canada related to the plaintiff’s termination. However, the fact is that Tej Bawa was not actually a corporate director, officer, or administrator of 217. Rather, he was the exclusive shareholder, director, and officer of 211.

d. The assertion of the defendant Danny Bawa as well as that of Tej Bawa that 211 and 217 were completely separate, distinct, and unrelated corporate entities is not credible in light of the documentary evidence tendered. The court is particularly skeptical of, and does not accept, Danny Bawa’s evidence related to:

i. the alleged self-serving second “Job Confirmation Letter” dated September 02, 2009, without proof that it was actually delivered to, received by, or otherwise agreed to by the plaintiff, Elizabeth Boyce; and

ii. the apparently modified ROE tendered in an affidavit of Danny Bawa which appears to have redacted “tej” and “Tej” from the employer contact and insurer lines in the form.¹²

b. Inclusion of Danny Bawa in the Employer/Employee Relationship?

58The plaintiff seeks to include Danny Bawa as a member of the group of employers for which she worked within the framework of the common employer doctrine. In her affidavit, she advised that it was her impression that Danny Bawa was the owner of the hotel as he clearly was the person in charge.

59There is no evidence before the court of an objective intention that Danny Bawa was to be a party to the employment relationship with the plaintiff.

60Danny Bawa may have been an officer, director and/or shareholder of one of the two companies through which the hotel business was run; however, there is no evidence which would support the conclusion that he was intended to be personally involved in the employment relationship as an employer. As the Court of Appeal notes in O’Reilly:

The common employer doctrine does not involve piercing the corporate veil or ignoring the separate legal personality of each corporation. It imposes liability on companies within a corporate group only if, and to the extent that, each can be said to have entered into a contract of employment with the employee.¹³

61The ostensible employer in the August 23, 2009 job confirmation letter was the Brantford Hampton Inn and Suites. Though it would have been reasonable for Elizabeth Boyce or anyone else to conclude from that letter that Danny Bawa was Elizabeth Boyce’s boss, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that there was any intention that he would personally be her employer.

62There is no evidence on the record which would justify piercing the corporate veil and visiting personal liability upon any officer or director of either of the corporations (217 and 211) which clearly were the employers in this circumstance.

63The plaintiff’s motion for judgment and her case against the defendant Danny Bawa must therefore fail.

D. The Res Judicata Issue and Abuse of Process Issue Outlined

64The defendants assert that the plaintiff’s claim is res judicata and constitutes an abuse of process.

65They argue that the elements necessary to find the matter is res judicata is premised on both the doctrines of issue estoppel and action estoppel. Specifically, they argue:

a. There is a final decision of a court of competent jurisdiction in a prior action;

b. The parties to the subsequent action (this action) were parties to or privy with the parties to the prior litigation;

c. The cause of action in the prior action is not separate and distinct from the cause of action asserted in the present action; and

d. The basis of the cause of action alleged in this action (wrongful dismissal) against 211 and Danny Bawa could have been argued in the prior action if the plaintiff had exercised reasonable diligence.¹⁴

E. Analysis and Determination of the Res Judicata and Abuse of Process Issue

66The court is not persuaded by the defendants’ arguments regarding the issue of res judicata and abuse of process. Though the application of the four principles outlined for this doctrine to apply may arguably exist, they stand in contrast to the counter-veiling principles outlined in the common employer doctrine.

67The defendants argue that, in modern business, it is completely legitimate for businesspeople to create elaborate corporate structures designed to achieve many goals like sheltering profit from tax liability or shielding principals of those businesses from personal lability.

68The defendants argue, to the extent that others who contract with those corporate entities are disappointed with the insolvency of such business structures once liability is adjudicated, it is inappropriate and duplicitous for them to resort to a second kick at the can when they should have done their homework and figured out the right parties to sue in the first round of litigation.

69This issue was front and center in the case of Downtown Eatery where the Court of Appeal was confronted with a factual situation remarkably close to the one in this case. In that case, the Court said:

[A]lthough an employer is entitled to establish complex corporate structures and relationships, the law should be vigilant to ensure that permissible complexity in corporate arrangements does not work an injustice in the realm of employment law. At the end of the day, [the plaintiff’s] situation is a simple, common and important one -- he is a man who had a job, with a salary, benefits and duties. He was fired -- wrongfully. His employer must meet its legal responsibility to compensate him for its unlawful conduct. The definition of “employer” in this simple and common scenario should be one that recognizes the complexity of modern corporate structures, but does not permit that complexity to defeat the legitimate entitlements of wrongfully dismissed employees.¹⁵ [emphasis added.]

70The plaintiff has a judgment against 217. The claim was essentially undefended. The Bawa family was content for the plaintiff to pursue her claim against 217 as they knew pursuing 217 would result in a dry judgment. Now they seek to shield 211 by arguing that the matter is res judicata and that the plaintiff and her counsel should have worked more diligently to figure out at the outset who the plaintiff’s real employer was. They are playing a game of “Catch me if you can!”

71It did not go unnoticed by the court that, in the cross-examination of Tej Bawa which occurred on September 27, 2013, he asserted that his company 211 just owns the land and building in which the hotel business is run. Further, he said that 211, at that time, was then leasing the hotel to his other son Guaravtej (Gary) to operate the business – as opposed to Danny. Tej Bawa indicated that 211 had been leasing the hotel to Gary for “approximately two years.”¹⁶

72The commencement of the lease of the hotel to Gary would have been in 2011. That is the point in time at which the plaintiff’s summary judgment against 217 was granted.

73It appears that the lease granted by 211 to 217 ended at or around the time of the plaintiff’s judgment against 217 and a new lease with another company operated by Gary began.

74It is precisely this sort of maneuvering that the common employer doctrine exists to protect employees against. It is designed to negate an artificial and unjust application of the res judicata doctrine in circumstances like this.

Conclusion

75For the reasons set out herein:

a. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and claim against 2113626 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Hampton Inn and Suites is granted.

b. The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and claim against Danny Bawa is dismissed.

c. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment against the estate of Elizabeth Boyce is dismissed.

76Given the foregoing, 211 and 217 are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for

$120,000 in damages for wrongful dismissal.

77Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest shall go in favour of the plaintiff at the applicable rates pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

78The parties, if they are not able to agree on costs, may provide written costs submissions on the following schedule:

a. The plaintiff is to provide written submissions of no longer than 5 pages on or before 4:00 p.m. on Friday, July 11, 2025.

b. The defendants are to provide responding written submissions of no longer than 5 pages on or before 4:00 p.m. on Friday, July 18, 2025.

79Counsel should be aware that the court is aware that the parties’ bills of costs/costs outlines are already uploaded to Case Center.

A. Spurgeon, J.

Date Released: June 30, 2025

CITATION: Boyce Estate v. 2113626 Ontario Inc. (Hampton Inn and Suites), 2025 ONSC 3844

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-00000834-00SR

DATE: 2025-06-30

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

THE ESTATE OF ELIZABETH BOYCE

Plaintiff

– and –

2113626 ONTARIO INC. c.o.b. as HAMPTON INN AND SUITES and

Footnotes

1. 1O’Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd., 2021 ONCA 385, 460 D.L.R. (4th) 487, at para. 65
2. 2It should be noted that in affidavit material tendered by plaintiff, the ROE features the name “tej bawa” as the employer and contact person for 217. The affidavit in which this document is tendered is the affidavit of Victoria Harrison, a licensed paralegal working for counsel for the plaintiff. Her evidence is that the ROE provided to Elizabeth Boyce contained the name “tej bawa” as the employer contact person or “Tej Bawa” as the insurer [see: Case Center p. A702]. However, in the affidavit of Danny Bawa sworn on May 11, 2012, at Exhibit E, the ROE features only the name: “bawa” as the employer contact person and “Bawa” as the insurer. [see: Case center p. B-1- 67]. There are blank spaces in the locations in the document supplied with Danny Bawa’s affidavit where the words “tej” and “Tej” are located on the document found in Ms. Harrison’s affidavit. This discrepancy is not explained.
3. 3Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, at para. 49
4. 4Royal Bank of Canada v. 1643937 Ontario Inc., 2021 ONCA 98, 154 O.R. (3d) 561, at para. 24
5. 5Hryniak, at para. 50.
6. 6O’Reilly, at para. 2
7. 7Scamurra v Scamurra Contracting, 2022 ONSC 4222, at para. 65.
8. 8Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd. v. Ontario (2001), 2001 CanLII 8538 (ON CA), 54 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.), at para 37.
9. 9O’Reilly, at para. 52, quoting Owners, Strate Plan LMS 3905 v. Crystal Square Parking Corp., 2020 SCC 29, [2020] 3 S.C.R. 247, at para 33.
10. 10O’Reilly, at para. 54.
11. 11Downtown Eatery, at paras. 24 and 27.
12. 12I refer back to Note 2 above explaining the two different sources for the two different versions of the ROE issued by 217. The court is of the view that the version tendered by the plaintiff, is authentic.
13. 13O’Reilly at para. 49, citing Sinclair v. Dover Engineering Services Ltd. 1988 CanLII 3358 (BC CA), 49 DLR (4th) 297 (BCCA) at para. 9.
14. 14The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. VimpelCom Ltd., 2019 ONCA 354, 145 O.R. (3d) 759, at paras. 25 and 50
15. 15Downtown Eatery, at para. 36.
16. 16Answer to question 49 in the transcript of the Cross-Examination of Tejwant Singh Bawa, September 27, 2013, (Case Center p. A798)