Belsat Video v. Astral Com. Inc., (1999) 118 O.A.C. 105 (CA)

• Judge: Carthy, Abella and Goudge, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: February 09, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 118 O.A.C. 105 (CA)

Belsat Video v. Astral Com. Inc. (1999), 118 O.A.C. 105 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.011

Belsat Video Marketing Inc. (plaintiff/appellant) v. Astral Communications Inc., BVA Video Ltd., Buena Vista Home Video Inc. and the Walt Disney Company (defendants/respondents)

(C29180)

Indexed As: Belsat Video Marketing Inc. v. Astral Communications Inc. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Carthy, Abella and Goudge, JJ.A.

February 12, 1999.

Summary:

The plaintiff video marketing company sued the defendants for conspiracy, induce­ment of breach of contract, unlawful inter­ference with economic relations and breach of the Competition Act. The defendants sought summary judgment.

The Ontario Court (General Division), in a decision reported 54 O.T.C. 84, allowed the application and granted sum­mary judgment where there were no genuine issues for trial. The plaintiff appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Practice - Topic 2120

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Statement of claim - General - [See Practice - Topic 2133 ].

Practice - Topic 2133

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - At trial - General - The plaintiff video mar­keting company sued the defendants for conspiracy, induce­ment of breach of con­tract, unlawful inter­ference with economic relations and breach of the Competition Act - The defendants sought summary judgment - Just prior to the summary judgment application, the plaintiff sought to amend its statement of claim - The trial judge declined the application - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's decision - The amendments were significant and no affidavit explanation was offered for the need for, or for the delay in seeking the proposed amendments.

Practice - Topic 2143

Pleadings - Amendment of pleadings - Circumstances when amendment denied - General - [See Practice - Topic 2133 ].

Practice - Topic 5702

Judgments and orders - Summary judg­ments - Jurisdiction or when available - The plaintiff video marketing company sued the defendants for conspiracy, in­duce­ment of breach of contract, unlawful inter­ference with economic relations and breach of the Competition Act - The defendants sought summary judgment - The trial judge allowed the application and granted sum­mary judgment where there were no genu­ine issues for trial - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.

Counsel:

William J. Burden and John N. Birch, for the appellant;

Kent E. Thomson and Sherri A. Pinsler, for the respondent Astral Communica­tions Inc.;

R. Paul Steep and Andrew deL. McDoug­all, for the other respondents.

This appeal was heard on February 9, 1999, before Carthy, Abella and Goudge, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following endorsement was released by the court on February 12, 1999.