Decisions of the Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

DATE: 20040930
DOCKET: C41414

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

SKYE PROPERTIES LIMITED and ROYCOM ENTREPRENEURS LIMITED (Plaintiffs/Respondents) -and- JEFF WU (Defendant/Appellant)

   

AND RE:

JEFF WU (Plaintiff by Counterclaim/Appellant) -and- SKYE PROPERTIES LIMITED, ROYCOM ENTREPRENEURS LIMITED, JASPER AVENUE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 390525 ALBERTA LIMITED, JASPER AVENUE G.P. INC., JOHN HAMPSON, DAVID G. WILLIAMS, JOHN ROY, LOU MAROUN, ROYCOM REALTY LIMITED, ROYCOM SECURITIES LIMITED and ROYCOM ENTREPRENEURS REAL ESTATE FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Defendants by Counterclaim/Respondents)

   

BEFORE:

CATZMAN, DOHERTY and JURIANSZ JJ.A.

   

COUNSEL:

Sheila R. Block and Andrew D. Gray for the defendant (appellant)/plaintiff by counterclaim (appellant) Jeff Wu

   
 

Warren H.O. Mueller, Q.C. and Robby Bernstein for the plaintiffs (respondents)/defendants by counterclaim (respondents)

 

Skye Properties Limited and Roycom Entrepreneurs Limited and Roycom Entrepreneurs Real Estate Fund Limited Partnership

   
 

John L. Finnigan for the defendants by counterclaim (respondents)

   
 

John Roy, Lou Maroun, Roycom Realty Limited and Roycom Securities Limited

   

HEARD AND ENDORSED:

September 29, 2004

On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Regional Senior Justice Robert A. Blair, Justice Dennis G. Lane and Justice John dePencier Wright) dated August 12, 2003.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1]               Notwithstanding Ms. Block’s capable submissions, we are not persuaded of any error in the decision of the Divisional Court that is the subject of this appeal, and we agree with the reasons given by Blair R.S.J. on behalf of the court.

[2]               Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

[3]               The respondents are entitled to their costs.  The costs of those represented by Mr. Mueller will be fixed in the amount of $25,000; and of those represented by Mr. Finnigan, in the amount of $7,500.

 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.