Kovacevic v. Griva

2025 ONCA 814

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: November 26, 2025

DOCKET: COA-24-CV-0634

van Rensburg, Miller and Sossin JJ.A.

Parties

BETWEEN:

Mira Kovacevic -- Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

Slobodan Griva and Milena Griva -- Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel

Sukanta Saha, for the appellant

Slobodan Griva and Milena Griva, acting in person

Heard

November 24, 2025

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Janet E. Mills of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 27, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 2979.

Reasons for Decision

[1] At the close of the hearing, we dismissed the appeal for reasons to follow. These are our reasons.

[2] In January 2011, the respondents were involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in Indiana. The respondent, Mr. Griva, was catastrophically injured, while the respondent, Mrs. Griva, was less seriously injured. The respondents entered into an agreement with the appellant, whereby they would pay her $2,000 per month for attendant care services. According to the appellant, the parties entered into an oral agreement, augmenting this contract. Under this agreement, instead of the fixed rate, the appellant would invoice the respondents for the work she performed, to be paid out of any funds received by the respondents in their personal injury actions (these actions were subsequently settled).

[3] The appellant was paid $66,500. Based on the appellant's invoices and timesheets between February 2011 to July 2015, however, she asserted that the value of her services was $642,633.77. The appellant thus commenced a claim for breach of contract, claiming payment of the balance, and punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.

[4] A pre-trial direction stipulated that all evidence-in-chief was to be provided by way of affidavit. Neither respondent attended at trial and their affidavit evidence was not accepted for filing. The trial thus proceeded uncontested on the basis of the appellant's affidavit, and a document book she submitted containing her invoices, timesheets and other documents.

[5] The trial judge dismissed the appellant's action in its entirety.

[6] First, the trial judge noted that there was no documentary evidence of any oral agreement modifying the terms of the appellant's compensation. She ruled as inadmissible documents that were not properly authenticated but included in the appellants' document book, including correspondence from Mr. Griva's former legal counsel to his new counsel stating that the appellant was owed $116,762.62 and communications between Mr. Griva and his lawyer that were subject to solicitor-client privilege (where there was no clear waiver of privilege from Mr. Griva). Similarly, the trial judge refused to rely on the invoices and timesheets, finding as a fact that they were exaggerated, if not fabricated. The trial judge found that the respondents agreed to pay the appellant $2,000 per month, all-in, for her services and that the $66,500 already paid to the appellant more than satisfied this amount. Accordingly, she dismissed the appellant's claim for general damages.

[7] Second, the trial judge rejected the appellant's claim for punitive damages. In her view, this claim rested on legal documents which had not been proven at trial. The trial judge held that the appellant could not satisfy the test for punitive damages as there was no evidence of an "actionable wrong" in addition to a breach of contract.

[8] The appellant argues that the trial judge erred by failing to properly consider r. 52.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, which provides, among other things, that where a plaintiff attends trial and the defendant fails to attend, the trial judge may "allow the plaintiff to prove the claim". In our view, this is precisely what the trial judge did. This rule did not require the trial judge to find in favour of the appellant.

[9] The appellant argues that the record showed that she had proved her case before the trial judge, based on the invoices, timesheets and evidence from the respondents' insurance claims, which she contends showed that the respondents obtained additional amounts based on the appellant's invoices.

[10] We reject this argument. The trial judge examined the uncontested evidence presented by the appellant, declined to consider clearly inadmissible evidence, and provided clear reasons, rooted in the record, for why she was not satisfied that the appellant had established an oral contract, its breach and a corresponding loss. Having dismissed the appellant's claim for breach of contract that was founded on legal documents which had not been proven, there was no basis for an award of punitive damages based on the same documents.

[11] We see no error in the trial judge's analysis or conclusions.

[12] Accordingly, we dismissed the appeal.

[13] As the respondents were not represented on the appeal and filed no material, there shall be no order for costs.

"K. van Rensburg J.A." --- "B.W. Miller J.A." --- "L. Sossin J.A."