Citation and Court Information
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 521/18
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, D.L. CORBETT, and DOYLE JJ.
Parties and Counsel
BETWEEN:
RICARDO LUDOVICE
Plaintiff
– and –
SANJEEV KUMAR and 1680880 ONTARIO INC. and JOHN DOE DRIVER, and ROYAL AND SUNALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
Defendants
Counsel:
Ricardo Ludovice, acting in person
Dave Dhillon, for the Defendants
HEARD at Toronto: January 16, 2019
Oral Reasons for Judgment
D.L. CORBETT J. (Orally)
Introduction
1This case comes to us from the final order of Lederer J. enforcing a $35,000.00 settlement between the parties. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to ss.19 (1)(a) and 1.2 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, which provide that an appeal lies to the Divisional Court from the final order of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice for a single payment of not more than $50,000, exclusive of costs.
Standard of Review
2The standard of review is correctness for questions of law, and palpable and overriding error for questions of fact (see: Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235).
Procedural Fairness
3In his written argument, Mr. Ludovice argues that Lederer J. denied him procedural fairness by refusing to hear his argument or to receive his materials. We cannot accept this argument.
4Justice Lederer’s endorsement refers to Mr. Ludovice’s arguments:
- His desire to bring his relatives to Canada;
- The misfortune of his relatives dying before they could come here;
- Mr. Ludovice’s difficulties with the insurance company;
- His inability to work;
- His medical problems going back to 2002; and,
- His difficult personal circumstances.
5He made the same arguments to us today.
6On the record that exists, it is apparent that Lederer J. gave Mr. Ludovice an opportunity to make his argument, heard his argument and this argument was reflected in his reasons. There was no denial of procedural fairness.
Analysis
7On the merits of the case, there is no legal error. The motion turned on a question of fact: whether the parties reached a settlement. Justice Lederer found that there was a settlement and this finding was available on the evidence before him. Justice Lederer also found that the settlement was not unconscionable in all the circumstances of the case and we see no error in this finding.
Disposition
8The appeal is dismissed.
SWINTON J.
Costs
9I have endorsed the Appeal Book and Compendium as follows: “This appeal is dismissed for oral reasons delivered by Corbett J. today. Costs to the respondent fixed at $899.14.”
D.L. Corbett J.
I agree
Swinton J.
I agree
Doyle J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 16, 2019
Date of Release: January 17, 2019
CITATION: Ludovice v. Kumar, 2019 ONSC 455
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 521/18
DATE: 20190116
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
SWINTON, D.L. CORBETT, and DOYLE JJ.
BETWEEN:
RICARDO LUDOVICE Plaintiff
– and –
SANJEEV KUMAR and 1680880 ONTARIO INC. and JOHN DOE DRIVER, and ROYAL AND SUNALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Defendants
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
D.L. CORBETT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 16, 2019
Date of Release: January 17, 2019