Viva voce evidence was contradicted by documentary evidence as well as conduct of parties

Contracts - Parties to Contract - Miscellaneous

Plaintiff supplied construction equipment to defendant numbered company. AG was one of directors of numbered company, and was also operations and construction manager of defendant T Corp which operated as T Construction. Contract was signed by defendant AG on behalf of numbered company “operating as” T Construction. With one exception, all documentation relating to equipment supplied and all invoices sent by plaintiff under contract were addressed to numbered company “operating as” T Construction Plaintiff's invoices were not paid. Plaintiff brought action for damages for unpaid invoices against numbered company and T Corp as well as against AG and SiG, who was director of T Corp, and SyG, who was director of numbered company. Defendants took position that T Corp was not liable for breach of contract as it was not party to contract. Plaintiff brought motion for summary judgment against defendants. Motion granted as against numbered company, T Corp and AG but dismissed as against SiG and SyG. T Corp and AG appealed on basis motion judge erred in determining that there was no genuine issue for trial and that litigation turned on findings of credibility, specifically of AG in denying T Corp had been listed as party to credit application and agreement when he signed it. Appeal dismissed. Appeal was without merit. Motion judge gave careful reasons for her findings supported by evidence that was before her. Motion judge rejected the T Corp’s and AG`s evidence, which was contradicted by documentary evidence as well as conduct of parties in acting in concert in construction project, using equipment supplied by plaintiff and receiving construction funds. Motion judge found numbered company had subcontracting relationship with T Corp and AG had requisite knowledge of transactions and assented and acquiesced in them. Motion judge was entitled to make these findings, and her factual findings were entitled to deference.

G. Cooper Equipment Rentals Limited v. 2208011 Ontario Limited (Trifield Construction) (2019), 2019 CarswellOnt 9374, 2019 ONCA 475, M. Tulloch J.A., L.B. Roberts J.A., and B.W. Miller J.A. (Ont. C.A.); affirmed (2018), 2018 CarswellOnt 15443, 2018 ONSC 5512, J. Copeland J. (Ont. S.C.J.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Failure of Ontario to ‘conduct and manage’ online gaming makes iGaming system illegal, says lawsuit

OCA orders new trial for accused whose lawyer ‘conscripted him into assisting his own prosecution’

Ontario Securities Commission welcomes Kevan Cowan as new chair

LSO opens applications for Legal Aid Ontario board, federal judiciary advisory committee

Appeal from certification order in bread price-fixing class action quashed

Stay refused for mother seeking to relocate child from Milton to Sarnia

Most Read Articles

Court awards 24 months’ notice to Air Canada employee terminated as part of COVID layoff

OCA orders new trial for accused whose lawyer ‘conscripted him into assisting his own prosecution’

LSO Convocation approves license proposal for non-lawyer family legal services providers

Recent ruling a 'cautionary tale' for start-ups, says IP lawyer