DATE: 20040227
DOCKET: C40302
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
| RE: | HEATHWOOD MANOR (RAGLAN) INC. (Applicant/Appellant/Respondent by way of cross-appeal) - and CAROLYN VADUM (Respondent/Appellant by way of cross-appeal) |
| BEFORE: | BORINS, FELDMAN JJ.A. and THEN J. (ad hoc) |
| COUNSEL: | Michael A. Spears for Heathwood Manor (Raglan) Inc. |
| Gordon C. Vadum, Q.C. for Carolyn Vadum | |
| HEARD & ENDORSED: | February 27, 2004 |
| On appeal from order of Justice Susan G. Himel of the Superior Court of Justice dated June 5, 2003. | |
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1] In dismissing the appellant's application, Himel J. relied on the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. She found that in purchasing the unit the respondent relied on the words and conduct of the appellant's manager, as the representative of the appellant, who provided the respondent with assurance that it was permissible for her to keep a dog in the unit. We are satisfied that Himel J. did not err in reaching this result.
[2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.