James v. Miller Group Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 3266
| Jurisdiction | Ontario |
| Judge | Ray, J. |
| Court | Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada) |
| Subject Matter | PRACTICE |
| Citation | 2013 ONSC 3266,[2013] O.T.C. Uned. 3266 (SC),[2013] O.T.C. Uned. 3266 |
| Date | 04 June 2013 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
2 practice notes
-
James v. Miller Group Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 7887
...motion to amend in order to delete any claims against Sernoskie (Ltd and Alan) following a Pierringer agreement was successful (2013 ONSC 3266). Essentially it was Sernoskie's motion since they were intended to be the beneficiary. [2] I received costs submissions from Sernoskie and fro......
-
Packard v. Fitzgibbon, 2017 ONSC 566
...able to collect a costs award in his favour. Counsel for Fitzgibbon referred me to the decision of Ray J. in James v. Miller Group Inc., 2013 ONSC 3266 (reversed, 2014 ONCA 225 on grounds said not to be pertinent to the point under review). That case involved a motion brought by plaintiffs,......
2 cases
-
James v. Miller Group Inc. et al., 2013 ONSC 7887
...motion to amend in order to delete any claims against Sernoskie (Ltd and Alan) following a Pierringer agreement was successful (2013 ONSC 3266). Essentially it was Sernoskie's motion since they were intended to be the beneficiary. [2] I received costs submissions from Sernoskie and fro......
-
Packard v. Fitzgibbon, 2017 ONSC 566
...able to collect a costs award in his favour. Counsel for Fitzgibbon referred me to the decision of Ray J. in James v. Miller Group Inc., 2013 ONSC 3266 (reversed, 2014 ONCA 225 on grounds said not to be pertinent to the point under review). That case involved a motion brought by plaintiffs,......