COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE: FABER ARBELAEZ (Plaintiff (Respondent)) v. L. BRENT VICKAR AND LOFRANCO, LONGLEY & VICKAR (Defendants (Appellants))
BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., ABELLA and MOLDAVER JJ.A.
COUNSEL: Jeffrey WM. Strype
For the appellant
Patrick Summers
For the respondent
HEARD: October 5 and 6, 2000
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Lloyd Brennan dated April 23, 1998.
E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellants' primary submission before us was that the jury's verdict was perverse as it related to the apportionment damages. They therefore requested that the apportionment be varied. They no longer seek a dismissal of the action.
2In our view, there is no basis for interfering with the jury's apportionment of damages. The threshold for such interference is exceptionally high (see Sparks v. Thompson, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 618](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1974/1974canlii146/1974canlii146.html), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 618) and based on the evidence before the jury, we are not satisfied that it has been met in this case.
3We are also of the view that the award of pre-judgment interest should not be varied. We received written submissions from the parties about whether a post-judgment interest rate should apply to the damages awarded. The rate, it was argued, should have been applied as of the time the respondent's trial would likely have taken place but for the negligence. In the circumstances of this case, we see no basis for interfering with the award of pre-judgment interest up to the time of the actual trial.
4Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.