SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-9048-00CL

DATE: 20150708

RE: Alexander L. Bimman also known as Sasha Bimman and 2182474 Ontario Inc., Plaintiffs

AND:

Arkadi Neiman, Corayana Enterprises Limited, 1050828 Ontario Ltd., Canadian Investment & Consulting Central Corporation, Larwest Canada (Caribbean) Inc., 2182158 Ontario Ltd., 1765350 Ontario Inc., 1771636 Ontario Ltd., Edward Poberezkin, Victor Itkine, Roman Shmulik, Alex Glozman and Corayana Services Ltd., Defendants

BEFORE: Justice Gans

COUNSEL: Igor Ellyn, for the Plaintiffs

Douglas Christie, for the Defendants

HEARD: In writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] By way of letter dated July 2, 2015, Defendants’ counsel brought an alleged “calculation error” in the Trial Judgment to the Court’s attention. Mindful that the Plaintiffs had already undertaken – unsuccessfully – a motion for remediation of certain alleged errors, Defendants’ counsel did not bring a formal motion for remediation, but made submissions that they hoped would be “received as being relevant to the formation of the final judgment.” Plaintiffs’ counsel, unsure as to whether he was expected to formally respond to the Defendants’ submissions, has not responded to this latest round of correspondence.

[2] As a matter of public policy, the judicial system places a high premium on finality in the litigation process: Angle v. M.N.R., 1974 168 (SCC), [1975] 2 S.C.R. 248; Grandview (Town of) v. Doering, 1975 16 (SCC), [1976] 2 S.C.R. 621; Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44 at paras. 18-19. In other words, there comes a time in the life of an action when enough is enough. That time has come for Bimman v. Neiman, at least with respect to the trial at first instance. The lengthy and troubled history of the relationship between the parties is chronicled in the Trial Judgment: Bimman v. Neiman, 2015 ONSC 2313 at paras. 6-123. The many twists and turns of the legal saga between these litigants were canvassed in my endorsement regarding costs and interest: Bimman v. Neiman, 2015 ONSC 4144.

[3] I do not view this as an appropriate instance in which to exercise my powers to amend, set aside or vary an order pursuant to r. 59.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. The scope of those powers is rather circumscribed and they ought to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances: Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund (Trustees of) v. Celestica Inc., 2013 ONSC 1502 at paras. 29-34. The remediation upon which the Defendants would have me embark is, simply put, too complicated a task to be done at this very late stage. In any event, I am of the view that it would be inappropriate to do so.

[4] As I observed at para. 7 of my endorsement in response to the Plaintiffs’ remediation motion, Bimman v. Neiman, 2015 ONSC 3076, “[t]he Plaintiffs have their remedies elsewhere.” The Defendants, too, have their remedies elsewhere.

Gans J.

Date: July 8, 2015