Court of Appeal for Ontario
BEFORE: Gillese, Lang and Rouleau JJ.A.
BETWEEN:
Krystyna Helena Wilk
Applicant (Respondent in Appeal)
Daniel Wilk, Janusz Wilk
Applicant (Third Parties)
and
Marek Golec
Respondent (Appellant)
Monika Golec (also known as Monica Golec), Madeline Golec, The Wilk-Golec Family Trust, Bozena Kleszcz, Waclaw Paul Golec
Respondent (Third Parties)
COUNSEL:
Geoffrey Wells for the appellant
Kathleen Laverick for the respondent
HEARD: April 9, 2010
On appeal from the order of Justice Lorna-Lee Snowie of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 26, 2009.
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
1An appeal in this proceeding was heard on April 9, 2010. The appeal was from an order striking Mr. Golec’s pleadings. The court allowed the appeal. It revived Mr. Golec’s pleadings and ordered that the matter go on for trial.
2Ms. Wilk brought a motion requesting that the appeal be re-opened on the basis of fresh evidence. The fresh evidence relates to the fact that trial counsel for Mr. Golec had been given some type of discipline after the hearing of the appeal and the police were conducting an investigation into an alleged forgery on one of the cheques that appears to be involved in the proceedings.
3Counsel appeared before LaForme J.A. who set a timetable for preparing motion materials. Materials were filed by both parties. The panel that heard the appeal considered those materials. Through a letter dated Sept. 8, 2010, from the Senior Legal Officer for the Court of Appeal to counsel, the parties were advised that assuming the court had the jurisdiction to re-open the appeal, it saw nothing in the materials that had been filed that warranted receiving further submissions or re-opening the appeal. Further, it advised that the issues set out in the newly filed materials might be raised at the forthcoming trial.
4Counsel for Ms. Wilk questioned the response and renewed her request that the court re-open the appeal. The panel, again through correspondence of its Senior Legal Counsel, reiterated that it was not prepared to entertain further submissions on the issue or re-open the appeal.
5Counsel for Mr. Golec seeks costs of approximately $6,500 for preparing responding materials for: (1) the motion heard by Justice LaForme and (2) the motion to re-open the appeal. In addition, he asks for costs of $1,000, for preparing his cost submissions.
6Mr. Golec has been wholly successful in the matters following disposition of the appeal and, consequently, is entitled to costs. In our view, a fair and reasonable amount for those matters is $2,500, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes. Order to go accordingly.
“E. E. Gillese J.A.”
“S. Lang J.A.”
“Paul Rouleau J.A.”