C70966.FAP.Harvey v. Bingemans Inc. ONCA: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Access restrictions were established for this page. If you see this message, you have no access to this page.
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
* The hearing judge made an overriding and palpable error of fact in finding that the appellant did not have exclusive possession of the campsite known as 268A. | * The hearing judge made an overriding and palpable error of fact in finding that the appellant did not have exclusive possession of the campsite known as 268A. | ||
* The hearing judge applied the wrong test to determine whether or not there was a tenancy under the <i>Commericial Tenancies Act, RSO 1990</i>. | * The hearing judge applied the wrong test to determine whether or not there was a tenancy under the <i>Commericial Tenancies Act, RSO 1990</i>. | ||
==Summary of the Facts== | |||
Revision as of 18:46, 2 September 2022
Grounds for Appeal
- The hearing judge made an overriding and palpable error of fact in finding that the appellant did not have exclusive possession of the campsite known as 268A.
- The hearing judge applied the wrong test to determine whether or not there was a tenancy under the Commericial Tenancies Act, RSO 1990.
