) ) VICTORIA ALEXANDRA VINER Plaintiff (Appellant) – v. –, 2013 ONSC 5554

CITATION : Viner v. Debut Global, 2013 ONSC 5554 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 588/12 DATE: 20130830 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT BETWEEN: ) ) VICTORIA ALEXANDRA VINER Plaintiff (Appellant) – and – DEBUT GLOBAL O/A IQ BUSINESS EVENTS Defendant (Respondent) )) )) )) )) )))) In Person Theresa M. Hartley and Michael S.

Blinick , for the Respondent ) ) ) HEARD at Toronto: August 30, 2013 ASTON J. (orally) [ 1 ] The plaintiff appeals the ruling of Deputy Judge Levine dated December 4, 2012 at which time he dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. [ 2 ] The trial judge found as a fact that any contractual obligation of the defendant was with Ms. Viner’s numbered company. Ms. Viner does not dispute that the company was essentially her alto ego, but her pleading in this proceeding alleges her personal entitlement to commission.

It is sometimes permissible in law to pierce the corporate veil and the trial judge erred in failing to consider the possibility of that without hearing evidence. The fact that Ms. Viner’s company was the original plaintiff in a claim started May 1, 2009, is strong contradictory evidence against Ms. Viner’s present allegation on this point but it is not necessarily conclusive. [ 3 ] On the limitation period issue, there is some evidence to support the trial judge’s finding but the trial judge erred in ruling as he did. It is not obvious that Ms.

Viner had sufficient knowledge of the facts in September 2008 to conclude, without hearing oral evidence, that she had discovered her cause of action or that it was discoverable by that date. On the other hand a person does not have to have perfect knowledge or actual evidence to start the clock ticking. Though Ms. Viner only received certain documents in June or July 2009, documents that would assist her in quantifying and proving her claim, that is a matter of evidence. It is clear beyond any doubt that Ms.

Viner has sufficient knowledge of the facts to support a cause of action by May 1, 2009 at the very latest. That was the date that she initiated the same claim she now advances, but with her company as the plaintiff in that first claim. [ 4 ] In this case there can be no question that the company’s knowledge is Ms. Viner’s knowledge. Had a trial proceeded, it would only be a question of when, before the company’s claim was issued on May 1, 2009, that Ms. Viner and her company knew enough to assert a potential contractual claim.

It may well have been as early as September 2008 as the trial judge found, but it was certainly no later than May 1, 2009. This claim is dated April 15, 2011 but it was not issued until May 31, 2011. It is therefore issued outside of the applicable two year limitation period. [ 5 ] The dismissal of the claim must therefore stand and the appeal is dismissed.

COSTS [ 6 ] I have endorsed the back of the Appeal Book and Compendium, “For oral reasons given and recorded, the appeal is dismissed, with costs fixed at $4,000 all inclusive.” ASTON J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: August 30, 2013 Date of Release: September 6, 2013 CITATION : Viner v. Debut Global, 2013 ONSC 5554 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 588/12 DATE: 20130830 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT ASTON J. BETWEEN: VICTORIA ALEXANDRA VINER Plaintiff (Appellant) – and – DEBUT GLOBAL O/A IQ BUSINESS EVENTS Defendant (Respondent) ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ASTON J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: August 30, 2013 Date of Release: September 6, 2013