Arbelaez v. Vickar et al., 2000 ONCA 16882

Case Summary

The appellants challenged a civil jury verdict, arguing that the apportionment of damages was perverse and that the award of pre-judgment interest should be varied. The court held that appellate interference with a jury's apportionment is subject to an exceptionally high threshold and found that threshold was not met on the evidence. The court also rejected the argument that a post-judgment interest rate should effectively replace pre-judgment interest from the date the trial ought to have occurred. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

DATE: 20001027

DOCKET: C29808

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: FABER ARBELAEZ (Plaintiff (Respondent)) v. L. BRENT VICKAR AND LOFRANCO, LONGLEY & VICKAR (Defendants (Appellants))

BEFORE: McMURTRY C.J.O., ABELLA and MOLDAVER JJ.A.

COUNSEL: Jeffrey WM. Strype

For the appellant

Patrick Summers

For the respondent

HEARD: October 5 and 6, 2000

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Lloyd Brennan dated April 23, 1998.

E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] The appellants' primary submission before us was that the jury's verdict was perverse as it related to the apportionment damages. They therefore requested that the apportionment be varied. They no longer seek a dismissal of the action.

[2] In our view, there is no basis for interfering with the jury's apportionment of damages. The threshold for such interference is exceptionally high (see Sparks v. Thompson, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 618](https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1974/1974canlii146/1974canlii146.html), [1975] 1 S.C.R. 618) and based on the evidence before the jury, we are not satisfied that it has been met in this case.

[3] We are also of the view that the award of pre-judgment interest should not be varied. We received written submissions from the parties about whether a post-judgment interest rate should apply to the damages awarded. The rate, it was argued, should have been applied as of the time the respondent's trial would likely have taken place but for the negligence. In the circumstances of this case, we see no basis for interfering with the award of pre-judgment interest up to the time of the actual trial.

[4] Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Arbelaez v. Vickar et al., 2000 ONCA 16882

Case Summary

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

E N D O R S E M E N T

Judges

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues