C70966.FAP.Harvey v. Bingemans Inc. ONCA: Difference between revisions
From Riverview Legal Group
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.
