Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Canada Corp. v. Zhang, [2015] O.A.C. Uned. 175

JudgeEdwards, J.
CourtSuperior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 13, 2015
JurisdictionOntario
Citations[2015] O.A.C. Uned. 175;[2015] O.A.C. Uned. 175 (DC);2015 ONSC 986
    • This document is available in original version only for vLex customers

      View this document and try vLex for 7 days
    • TRY VLEX
2 practice notes
  • Tzaferis v. Multicast Networks Holdings Inc. et al., [2015] O.A.C. Uned. 830 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 4 Diciembre 2015
    ...a trial judge an appellant must demonstrate that there is a palpable and overriding error in order to succeed. [ Mercedes-Benz v. Zang , 2015 ONSC 986 (Div. Ct.); Housen v. Nikolaisen , 2002 SCC 33] Conclusion [9] I find no basis upon which to grant this appeal. [10] With respect to the fin......
  • Persaud v. Ramawad,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 16 Septiembre 2021
    ...the representation was made must have acted upon it to his or her detriment. See Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Canada Corp. v. Zhang, 2015 ONSC 986 (Div. Ct.) at para. [91]        The Ramawads did not enforce the Corkery J. Order in accordance with its ......
2 cases
  • Tzaferis v. Multicast Networks Holdings Inc. et al., [2015] O.A.C. Uned. 830 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 4 Diciembre 2015
    ...a trial judge an appellant must demonstrate that there is a palpable and overriding error in order to succeed. [ Mercedes-Benz v. Zang , 2015 ONSC 986 (Div. Ct.); Housen v. Nikolaisen , 2002 SCC 33] Conclusion [9] I find no basis upon which to grant this appeal. [10] With respect to the fin......
  • Persaud v. Ramawad,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 16 Septiembre 2021
    ...the representation was made must have acted upon it to his or her detriment. See Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Canada Corp. v. Zhang, 2015 ONSC 986 (Div. Ct.) at para. [91]        The Ramawads did not enforce the Corkery J. Order in accordance with its ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT