Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-21-765 Date: 2022-03-03 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Lambrini Kutlarovski and Zoran Kutlarovski, Plaintiffs And: Aviva Insurance Company of Canada and FirstOnSite Restoration Ltd., carrying on business as FirstOnSite Restoration, FirstOne Site Restoration Inc., carrying on business as FirstOneSite Restoration, FirstService Corporation carrying on business as FirstOnSite Restoration, Defendants
Before: Conlan J.
Counsel: Ms. Assuras, Counsel for the Plaintiffs Mr. Cook, Counsel for the Defendant, Aviva Insurance Company
Heard: March 2, 2022 - In Writing
Endorsement - Appointment to Settle an Order
[1] The parties cannot agree on the form and content of the Order of this Court stemming from its decisions dated October 14, 2021 [2021 ONSC 6850] and January 18, 2022 [2022 ONSC 411].
[2] The parties have submitted their respective versions of the Order to the Court for review, and they have agreed that I may decide the issue without the need for further submissions if I believe that it would be just to do so. I am of that belief, and I direct that the operative part of the Order shall read as follows.
- This Court orders the appointment of an appraiser for the plaintiffs, pursuant to section 128(5) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended; and
- This Court orders further that the plaintiffs shall participate in the appraisal, pursuant to Statutory Condition 11 of the policy and section 128 of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended; and
- This Court orders further that the plaintiffs shall, within thirty calendar days of January 18, 2022, pay costs to Aviva Insurance Company in the total amount of $2,500.00.
[3] The above is precisely what the Court ordered (reference should be had to paragraphs 2 and 18 of the October 14, 2021 Endorsement and clause 10 of the January 18, 2022 Endorsement).
[4] In settling a disputed order, the Court must be loyal to a narrow purpose – to ensure that the formal order accurately sets out the intention of the decision. The above direction fulfils that purpose. There is nothing more to clarify, and this is not an opportunity to re-litigate issues or to pronounce on matters that were not argued and decided.
[5] I assume that the parties do not want this Court to draft the preamble (recitals) to the Order. There are a few differences between those recitals in the two versions presented. This is relatively unimportant, however, unless there is an outstanding appeal that may depend on what had been filed and read by the Court in making its decision on the motion. Counsel will advise me if that is the case. Otherwise, we should refrain from such a make-work project.
C.J. Conlan Electronic signature of Conlan J. Date: March 3, 2022