Consolidated statement of claim re: Sunrise Propane explosion

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16property. Teskey Construction leased that property to one or more of the SunriseCompanies tn 1easing the property, Teskey Construction established specificstandards and procedures regarding their supervision and control of that propertywhich remained in place when the Teskey Numbered Company assumed legalownership of that property and were in place at the time of the explosions andfire,42, The transfer of the property to the Teskey Numbered Company did not changewho controlled the property at 54 and 62 Munay Road, as the Teskey NumberedCompany was, in etfect, the alter ego of Teskey Construction or completelydominated by Teskey Construction and as the property was leased back toTeskey Construction or Teskey Concrete or both of themThat propertyremained under the control of Teskey Construction and its officers and directors,or subsidiaries, as described below,43 On July g1th, ZOOT the property located at 48 Munay Road was purchased byHGT, who was the owner of that property at the time of the explosions hereinafterdescribed44. HGT purchased the property located at 48 Murray Road from the defendantTeskey Concrete and then leased that property back to Teskey Concrete orTeskey Construction or both of them who was the lessee of that property at thetime of the explosions Teskey Concrete purchased that property on March 1st,
171gg6 and continued to own the property at the tirne that the Sunrise Companiestook possession of that property Teskey Concrete leased that property to one ormore of the Sunrise Companies ln leasing the property, Teskey Concreteestablished specific standards and procedures regarding their supervision andcontrol of that property which remained in place when the HGT assumed legalownership of that property and were in place at the time of the explosions andfire.45,The transfer of the property to HGT did not change who controlled the property at48 Murray Road, as the HGT was, in effect, the alter ego of Teskey Concrete orcompletely dominated by Teskey Concrete and as the properly was leased backto Teskey Concrete or Teskey Construction or both of them. That propertyremained under the control of Teskey Concrete and its officers and directors, orsubsidiaries, as described below.4G,The Teskey Companies were operated as one economic unit or a single groupenterprise as follows:(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)Each of the four companies is a parent or subsidiary of theothers or is an affiliate of the others;Each of the four companies is the agent of the others;All four companies have the same officers and directors;Allfour companies have common offices and employees;Allfour companies operate underthe same name;
Page 3: 3AND TO:AND TO:AND TO:AND TO:AND TO
Page 8 and 9: B15,The defendant Leonid Belahov is
Page 10: 10owned, leased, rented and/or occu
Page 14 and 15: 1437, 1452049 Ontario Inc, failed t
Page 18 and 19: 18(f)(g)(h)(i)0)The Teskey Companie
Page 20 and 21: 2A51,Mr. Durling and his wife immed
Page 22 and 23: 2259.As a result of the explosions
Page 24 and 25: 24fumes and other chemicals, She ha
Page 26 and 27: 2675,As a consequence of the damage
Page 28 and 29: 28arose from a use of the Property
Page 30 and 31: 3088.The circumstances of the Sunri
Page 32 and 33: 32(k)They failed to provide necessa
Page 34 and 35: 34(a)(b)(c)It was reasonable for th
Page 36 and 37: 36(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)The circumstances
Page 38 and 39: 38property, and required the plaint
Page 40 and 41: 40111 The plaintiffs and other clas
Page 42 and 43: 42the cost of personal care items a
Page 44 and 45: 44Henry Juroviesky (L.S.U.C.# 53233

Consolidated statement of claim re: Sunrise Propane explosion

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?