DATE: 2005-11-30

DOCKET: C37934

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE: DOMINIC GISMONDI (Plaintiff (Respondent)) – and – THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO (Defendant (Appellant))

BEFORE: ROSENBERG J.A.

COUNSEL: Christopher G. Riggs, Q.C. and Laurie A. Wall for the appellant David Moore for the respondent

HEARD: November 28, 2005

REASONS RELEASED: April 29, 2003

A D D E N D U M

[1] The parties now agree that this court at least has concurrent jurisdiction to deal with the issue of pre-judgment interest. Given the passage of time since the trial and that a question of post-judgment interest is still before this court, I think it proper for me to deal with the issue.

[2] Mr. Riggs suggests two reasons for denying the respondent pre-judgment interest for all or part of the time since the respondent’s termination. First, that the judgment of the Court of Appeal resulted in the respondent receiving no more than was originally offered by the City. Second, the respondent delayed issuing his statement of claim for a year and a half.

[3] Neither argument is persuasive. The City has always conceded that it owed the respondent the money offered in the termination package. Yet, it did not pay that money and has had use of it. The respondent shall have pre-judgment interest from the date of the offer, December 8, 1998 at the Courts of Justice Rate.

[4] As to post-judgment interest, when the order of this court was taken out, the parties agreed on post-judgment interest at the rate of 4 percent. The City now asks me to vary this award because of delay since the judgment of this court. The delay was due in part because of the application for leave to appeal and then because the City was unable to obtain information from the respondent concerning the amount of E.I. repayments. Today, Mr. Riggs relies only on the latter problem. I agree with Mr. Moore that it was always open to the City to obtain this information from the government and they finally did so in August of this year. I do not think this avoidable delay is a reason to vary the order of the court.

[5] Costs of today’s attendance to the respondent fixed at $1,000 inclusive of disbursements and G.S.T.

Signed: Rosenberg J.A.