The applicant’s representative argues that there are nevertheless reasons why Controlled should be found to have liability. He relies on Curling v. Victoria Tea Co Ltd., 2000, 20870 (ON HRT) for this. In that case, an individual was found to have carried on the same business using different corporate names. That decision cited (Stone County Specialists v. Wiesco Canada Limited, [1992] O.J. No. 2069) as support for a finding of liability when the change in name has been done in an attempt to escape liability
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.