CITATION: Wright v. Marliartchouk, 2019 ONSC 5675

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-18-00001120-0000

LANDLORD AND TENANT COURT FILE NO. HOT-02583-18

DATE: 20191001

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: NZINGA WRIGHT, Appellant

AND:

NATALIA MALIARTCHOUK AND VALERI MALIARTCHOUK, Respondents

BEFORE: GLITHERO, D. L. CORBETT and FAVREAU JJ.

COUNSEL: John David Ekpenyong, for the Appellant

Daniel Yudashkin, for the Respondents

HEARD in writing

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS

[1] It has been brought to our attention that, contrary to our reasons released on September 17, 2019, a bill of costs was provided to the court by the respondent.

[2] We have reviewed that bill of costs. We consider it reasonable. However, we also consider that the respondent's delay in retaining counsel, precipitating the need for an adjournment, put the appellant to unnecessary additional expense - albeit less than the expense that would have been involved in a further attendance to argue the appeal orally. In all the circumstances we remain satisfied that there should be no order as to costs.

GLITHERO J.

D. L. CORBETT J.

FAVREAU J.

Date: October 1, 2019