Court File and Parties
Citation: Wonsch v. Wonsch, 2007 ONCA 576 Date: 2007-08-28 Docket: C44086 & C46363
Court of Appeal for Ontario Before: Sharpe, Juriansz JJ.A. and Chapnik J. (ad hoc)
Between:
Roy Bryan Wonsch, a person under disability by his Litigation Guardian Richard Wonsch, Richard Wonsch personally, Christopher Mark Wonsch, Paul Stewart Wonsch and Daniel Edward Wonsch Plaintiffs (Respondents)
- and -
Gordon Wonsch, Charles F. Wonsch, Kenneth Wonsch, Wonsch Construction Company Limited and 414968 Ontario Limited Defendants (Appellants)
Counsel: Lou-Anne F. Farrell for the appellants William V. Sasso and Craig J. Allen for the respondents
Heard: June 6, 2007
On appeal from the judgments of Justice Steven Rogin of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 26, 2005, with reasons reported at (2005), 75 O.R. (3d) 198, and November 14, 2006.
Costs Endorsement
[1] We have now received and considered submissions from the parties as to costs and with respect to the calculation of the award of interest made in our judgment dated June 21, 2007.
[2] With respect to interest, in response to the questions raised in Ms. Farrell’s letter of June 27, 2007, we order as follows:
and 2. The respondents request was for interest at the presumptive rate for prejudgment interest set pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act. In our judgment, we awarded “interest at the prevailing chartered bank prime lending rate on the excessive management compensation [the respondents] received”. The respondents should not be permitted to recover more than they claimed, nor, in accordance with our reasons, should they be permitted to recover more than the prevailing chartered bank prime lending. Accordingly, we order that the rate be whichever rate is, from time to time, the lower of the two rates.
Interest is to be calculated on the basis of a floating rate.
Interest is to be paid on the excessive management compensation from the time of actual receipt by the appellants without credit for any delay in payment to them of the appropriate compensation.
The interest is to be simple, not compound interest.
[3] With respect to costs, in view of the divided success on the appeal and the cross-appeal, the parties shall each bear their own costs of the appeal.
“Robert J. Sharpe J.A.”
“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”
“Sandra Chapnik J.”