COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Page: 75
Hryniak‟s ability to finance the letter of credit: see Mauldin v. Hryniak, 2011 ONCA
126.
[180] Considering that Hryniak‟s appeal was dismissed in the Mauldin action and
allowed in the Bruno action, we must decide how to deal with the proceeds of the letter of
credit. The parties to the appeals may file brief written submissions of no more than five
pages setting out their positions on the order this court should make in respect of the
proceeds of the letter of credit.
[181] Finally, the parties may make written submissions on the costs of the appeals and
on the costs of Bruno‟s motion for summary judgment.
394 Lakeshore Oakville Holdings Inc. v. Misek (C53035)
On appeal from the order of Justice Paul M. Perell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated
November 2, 2010, with reasons reported at 2010 ONSC 6007.
1. Introduction
[182] This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment in favour of the
respondent, 394 Lakeshore Oakville Holdings Inc. The motion judge declared that the
property of the appellant, Carol Anne Misek, does not enjoy a prescriptive easement over
the respondent‟s property. In so doing, the motion judge exercised the enhanced powers
under rule 20.04(2.1), which allow a judge on a motion for summary judgment to weigh
evidence, evaluate credibility, and draw reasonable inferences from the evidence.