Court File and Parties

Citation: Keryluk v. LaMarche, 2008 ONCA 281

Date: 20080415

Docket: C46981

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Before: MOLDAVER, CRONK and BLAIR JJ.A.

Between:

RONALD KERYLUK and FRANCINE KERYLUK Plaintiffs (Respondent)

and

MICHEL LAMARCHE and ROXANNE VILLENEUVE Defendants (Appellants)

Counsel: Kevin P. Nearing for the appellant Douglas G. Menzies for the respondent

Heard and endorsed: April 11, 2008

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Charles T. Hackland of the Superior Court of Justice dated August 21, 2006.

Appeal Book Endorsement

[1] The trial judge gave thorough and considered reasons for judgment. There was ample evidence on this record to support his disputed findings of fact, including those that grounded his liability conclusions and damages assessment. In particular, we are satisfied that there was evidence on which the trial judge could assess the appropriate quantum of damages in respect of the flower gardens, the amelioration of the excavated area and the repair of the basement wall. Nor have we been persuaded that the trial judge erred in his legal analysis of liability.

[2] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

[3] We would also dismiss the cross-appeal on costs. In so concluding, we are not persuaded that the trial judge erred in principle in his costs assessment, including his treatment of the offers to settle, nor are we persuaded that his costs award is plainly wrong. Accordingly, there is no basis for appellate intervention.

[4] Taking into account the mixed success, the respondents are entitled to costs of $25,000, all inclusive. We note that the parties agreed that the $25,000 figure was appropriate for fees incurred. These costs are payable by the appellants LaMarche and Villeneuve.