CITATION: Print N' Promotion (Canada) Ltd. v. Kovachis, 2011 ONCA 204

DATE: 20110315

DOCKET: C51368

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Cronk, Armstrong and Epstein JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Print N’ Promotion (Canada) Ltd., carrying on business as megaposter.ca

Respondent

and

Norman Kovachis, Alexander N. Kovachis, Zoe Kovachis, Tommy Kovachis, William Kovachis, and Alexandra Lorraine Leyland

Appellants

Andrew M. Robinson and Megan Mackey, for the appellant Alexander N. Kovachis

Jayson W. Thomas, for the remaining appellants

Chris Dockrill, for the respondent

Heard: December 17, 2010

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Lois B. Roberts of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 13 and December 14, 2009.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] Our reasons in this appeal were released on January 12, 2011. In those reasons, we requested written submissions from the parties on the issue of the costs of the trial. We have now received and reviewed those submissions.

[2] In its written costs submissions, the respondent requests that we reconsider our disposition in this appeal based on information contained in the time dockets of the appellants’ trial counsel (produced for the purpose of the costs submissions that we requested). The respondent submits that this new information, viewed with other information on the record, contradicts an observation made by this court in our reasons for judgment.

[3] We decline this reconsideration request. Contrary to the respondent’s contention, there are various possible meanings and explanations for the docket entry in question. Moreover, the other information relied on by the respondent in this regard was before this court when the appeal was heard. That information and the fresh information contained in the relevant docket entry do not alter our conclusion that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence that she relied on as establishing knowledge by the Landlord (the Kovachis family) of the Subtenant (the respondent) sufficient to make out the tort alleged.

[4] With respect to the issue of the costs of the trial, we have considered the parties’ written submissions and supporting materials, including the detailed dockets of the appellants’ trial counsel. In light of all those materials, we conclude that an award of trial costs in favour of Alexander N. Kovachis is appropriate, fixed in the amount of $50,000, inclusive of outstanding costs awarded on motions determined in his favour, disbursements and all applicable taxes, and we so order.

“E.A. Cronk J.A.”

“Robert P. Armstrong J.A.”

“Gloria Epstein J.A.”