Court File and Parties

CITATION: Demers v. Lévesque, 2010 ONCA 700

DATE: 20101022

DOCKET: C50484

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Sharpe, Blair and Rouleau JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Edgar Demers

Plaintiff/(respondent)

and

Stéphanie Lévesque, Jan Nichols, et Service Corporation Internationale (Canada) Limitée faisant affaire sous la raison sociale Maison Funéraire Robert, Racine & Gauthier

Defendants/(Appellants)

Noëlle Caloren and Nadia Effendi, for the appellants/defendants

Ronald F. Caza and Marc Sauvé, for the plaintiff/respondent

Heard: October 20, 2010

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Albert Roy of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 14, 2009.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We do not agree with the appellant’s submission that the trial judge’s reasons are inadequate to allow for appellate review. The reasons demonstrate that the trial judge did consider the relevant evidence and the appellant’s version of the event but rejected that version and accepted that of the respondent. In our view, these reasons show the pathway to the result.

[2] Given the trial judge’s findings, with one exception, there is no error in his application of the law relating to malicious prosecution and wrongful dismissal.

[3] However, we agree with the appellant that there is a duplication in the award of “Wallace” or “Honda” damages and the aggravated damages for malicious prosecution. The very same factors were used to justify both awards.

[4] Accordingly, we would allow the appeal from the award of $15,000 “Wallace” or “Honda” damages but otherwise dismiss the appeal.

[5] With respect to costs, in view of the offer to settle, the substantial reduction made by the trial judge from the costs submitted by the appellant and the complexity and nature of the case, we see no basis to interfere and therefore, leave to appeal costs is denied.

[6] Costs to the respondent fixed at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.