COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
RE:
MOVADO GROUP OF CANADA, INC. (Plaintiff (Appellant)) - and – ROYAL DE VERSAILLES JEWELLERS INC. (Defendant (Respondent))
BEFORE:
MOLDAVER, CRONK AND LAFORME JJ.A.
COUNSEL:
Michele Ballagh
for the appellant
Peter-Paul E. Du Vernet
for the respondent
HEARD & ENDORSED:
January 24, 2006
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Nick Borkovich of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 15, 2005.
A P P E A L B O O K E N D O R S E M E N T
1The appellant Movado raises four issues on appeal.
2Dealing first with the $25,000 damage award for breach of contract, while we agree that the trial judge’s explanation for arriving at that amount leaves something to be desired, we think that on the evidence as a whole, the trial judge was satisfied that Royal suffered some damages by reason of Movado’s breach, albeit not in the amount claimed by Royal.
3The $25,000 figure was significantly less than that claimed and we think that it was reasonable in all of the circumstances. We are also satisfied that there was a basis, in the evidence, for the trial judge to find that Royal did suffer damages by reason of Movado’s breach.
4That said, we find no basis in the reasons justifying Royal’s retention of the three remaining consignment watches, for which Movado has not been compensated. Accordingly, we would order that Royal return the three watches to Movado forthwith or otherwise adjust.
5With respect to costs, we have not been persuaded that the trial judge erred in the exercise of his discretion and accordingly, we would not interfere with his costs order. We take a different view with respect to his refusal to award pre-judgment interest. The trial judge gave no reasons for denying it and under the Courts of Justice Act, Movado was presumptively entitled to it. Royal has not convinced us in argument that the refusal was justified. Accordingly, Movado is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the amount awarded to it in accordance with the rates provided for in the Courts of Justice Act.
6In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order below is varied to reflect these reasons.
7No order as to costs.