CITATION: Nanji v. 944936 Ontario Inc., 2010 ONSC 771
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 406/09
DATE: 20100201
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C., FERRIER AND MCCOMBS JJ.
BETWEEN:
KARIM NANJI and MINA NANJI, also known as MINA MANJI
Plaintiffs/Appellants
– and –
944936 ONTARIO INC., carrying on business as CUSTOM SOUND & IMAGE
Defendants/Respondents
Richard H. Parker, Q.C., for the Appellants
Jeffrey A. L. Kriwetz, for the Respondents
HEARD at Toronto: February 1, 2010
mccombs j.
[1] This is an appeal from a trial decision in a civil action.
[2] The appellants assert that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence; that he ignored or failed to appreciate relevant evidence supporting the appellants’ position at trial; and that his reasons for judgment fail to meet the threshold criteria for adequacy in that they do not adequately explain the judge’s conclusions, and are so general they do not provide a basis for a meaningful appellate review.
[3] In our view, this appeal is an attempt to re-litigate this matter.
[4] The trial judge had the benefit of hearing and weighing the evidence. He concluded, as it was open to him to do, that the plaintiff (respondent) had made out its case. Accordingly, he granted judgment in the amount of $13,413.04.
[5] In order for this Court to interfere with the decision of the trial judge it must be obvious that there was a palpable and overriding error. In other words it must be shown that the trial judge was clearly wrong.
[6] We are of the view that the trial judge’s findings of fact at trial were reasonable, and supported by the evidence, and did not involve any misapprehension of evidence or ignoring of relevant evidence favourable to the appellants. As such, the trial judge’s findings of fact are entitled to deference on appeal: MacLeod v. MacLeod (2003) 4781 (Ont. C.A.).
[7] Moreover, we are satisfied that the trial judge’s reasons for judgment adequately explain his conclusions, and provide a sufficient basis for meaningful appellate review: Chippewas of Mnjikaning First Nation v. Ontario (Minister of Native Affairs) 2010 ONCA 47, [2010] O.J. 212 (Ont.C.A.); R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, [2002], 1 S.C.R. 869, at para. 55; R. v. Braich, 2002 SCC 27, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903, at paras. 40-41; R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3, at paras. 52-57.
[8] In the result the appeal must be dismissed.
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C.
[9] The appeal is dismissed for reasons given orally. Costs fixed at $5,000.00 including disbursements plus GST.
MCCOMBS J.
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C.
FERRIER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 1, 2010
Date of Release: February 4, 2010
CITATION: Nanji v. 944936 Ontario Inc., 2010 ONSC 771
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 406/09
DATE: 20100201
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C., FERRIER AND MCCOMBS JJ.
BETWEEN:
KARIM NANJI and MINA NANJI, also known as MINA MANJI
Plaintiffs/Appellants
– and –
944936 ONTARIO INC., carrying on business as CUSTOM SOUND & IMAGE
Defendants/Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MCCOMBS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: February 1, 2010
Date of Release: February 4, 2010