Movado Group of Canada, Inc. v. Royal De Versailles Jewellers Inc.
The Court concluded the trial judge's $25,000 damages award, though imperfectly explained, was supported by the evidence and therefore would not be disturbed; however, there was no evidentiary basis for Royal's retention of the three consignment watches so they must be returned or adjusted, and the trial judge erred...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C43379
- Parties
- Appellant: Movado Group of Canada, Inc.; Respondent: Royal de Versailles Jewellers Inc.
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 30 January 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Collection / Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; order below varied
- Legal Topics
- Breach of Contract, Damages, Consignment Goods, Pre Judgment Interest, Return of Goods
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Movado Group of Canada, Inc.
Appellant
Royal de Versailles Jewellers Inc.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Collection / Appeal From Superior Court Judgment (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge's $25,000 damages award for breach of contract was supported by the evidence
- 2 Whether the respondent was justified in retaining three consignment watches without compensating the appellant
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in refusing pre-judgment interest
Ratio Decidendi
The Court concluded the trial judge's $25,000 damages award, though imperfectly explained, was supported by the evidence and therefore would not be disturbed; however, there was no evidentiary basis for Royal's retention of the three consignment watches so they must be returned or adjusted, and the trial judge erred by denying pre-judgment interest without reasons contrary to the presumption under the Courts of Justice Act; the costs order was upheld as within the trial judge's discretion.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; order below varied
Orders
- Royal de Versailles Jewellers Inc. to return the three consignment watches to Movado Group of Canada, Inc. forthwith or otherwise adjust
- Movado Group of Canada, Inc. entitled to pre-judgment interest on the amount awarded in accordance with the rates provided in the Courts of Justice Act
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Movado Group of Canada, Inc. v. Royal De Versailles Jewellers Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-01-30 Docket numbers C43379 Judges Moldaver, Michael James; Cronk, Eleanore Ann; LaForme, Harry Smith Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20060125 DOCKET: C43379 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: MOVADO GROUP OF CANADA, INC. (Plaintiff (Appellant)) - and – ROYAL DE VERSAILLES JEWELLERS INC. (Defendant (Respondent)) BEFORE: MOLDAVER, CRONK AND LAFORME JJ.A. COUNSEL: Michele Ballagh for the appellant Peter-Paul E. Du Vernet for the respondent HEARD & ENDORSED: January 24, 2006 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Nick Borkovich of the Superior Court of Justice dated March 15, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant Movado raises four issues on appeal. [2] Dealing first with the $25,000 damage award for breach of contract, while we agree that the trial judge’s explanation for arriving at that amount leaves something to be desired, we think that on the evidence as a whole, the trial judge was satisfied that Royal suffered some damages by reason of Movado’s breach, albeit not in the amount claimed by Royal. [3] The $25,000 figure was significantly less than that claimed and we think that it was reasonable in all of the circumstances. We are also satisfied that there was a basis, in the evidence, for the trial judge to find that Royal did suffer damages by reason of Movado’s breach. [4] That said, we find no basis in the reasons justifying Royal’s retention of the three remaining consignment watches, for which Movado has not been compensated. Accordingly, we would order that Royal return the three watches to Movado forthwith or otherwise adjust. [5] With respect to costs, we have not been persuaded that the trial judge erred in the exercise of his discretion and accordingly, we would not interfere with his costs order. We take a different view with respect to his refusal to award pre-judgment interest. The trial judge gave no reasons for denying it and under the Courts of Justice Act, Movado was presumptively entitled to it. Royal has not convinced us in argument that the refusal was justified. Accordingly, Movado is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the amount awarded to it in accordance with the rates provided for in the Courts of Justice Act. [6] In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order below is varied to reflect these reasons. [7] No order as to costs.