Court File and Parties
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
Sharpe, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Edgar Demers
Plaintiff/(respondent)
and
Stéphanie Lévesque, Jan Nichols, et Service Corporation Internationale (Canada) Limitée faisant affaire sous la raison sociale Maison Funéraire Robert, Racine & Gauthier
Defendants/(Appellants)
Noëlle Caloren and Nadia Effendi, for the appellants/defendants
Ronald F. Caza and Marc Sauvé, for the plaintiff/respondent
Heard: October 20, 2010
On appeal from the judgment of Justice Albert Roy of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 14, 2009.
APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT
[1]
Analysis
We do not agree with the appellant’s submission that the trial judge’s reasons are inadequate to allow for appellate review. The reasons demonstrate that the trial judge did consider the relevant evidence and the appellant’s version of the event but rejected that version and accepted that of the respondent. In our view, these reasons show the pathway to the result.
2Given the trial judge’s findings, with one exception, there is no error in his application of the law relating to malicious prosecution and wrongful dismissal.
3However, we agree with the appellant that there is a duplication in the award of “Wallace” or “Honda” damages and the aggravated damages for malicious prosecution. The very same factors were used to justify both awards.
[4]
Disposition
Accordingly, we would allow the appeal from the award of $15,000 “Wallace” or “Honda” damages but otherwise dismiss the appeal.
[5]
Costs
With respect to costs, in view of the offer to settle, the substantial reduction made by the trial judge from the costs submitted by the appellant and the complexity and nature of the case, we see no basis to interfere and therefore, leave to appeal costs is denied.
6Costs to the respondent fixed at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.