Print N' Promotion (Canada) Ltd. v. Kovachis
The court refused to reconsider its prior disposition because the newly produced docket entry was susceptible to multiple reasonable explanations and, together with information already before the court, did not alter the conclusion that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence about the Landlord’s knowledge...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2011 ONCA 204
- Parties
- Respondent: Print N’ Promotion (Canada) Ltd., carrying on business as megaposter.ca; Appellant: Norman Kovachis; Appellant: Alexander N. Kovachis; Appellant: Zoe Kovachis; Appellant: Tommy Kovachis; Appellant: William Kovachis; Appellant: Alexandra Lorraine Leyland
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Costs Endorsement Following Appeal Decision
- Outcome
- Reconsideration request denied; trial costs awarded to Alexander N. Kovachis.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Awards, Reconsideration of Appellate Disposition, Misapprehension of Evidence, Landlord Liability to Subtenant
- 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
Print N’ Promotion (Canada) Ltd., carrying on business as megaposter.ca
Respondent
Norman Kovachis
Appellant
Alexander N. Kovachis
Appellant
Zoe Kovachis
Appellant
Tommy Kovachis
Appellant
William Kovachis
Appellant
Alexandra Lorraine Leyland
Appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Costs Endorsement Following Appeal Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should reopen or reconsider its prior disposition based on newly produced trial counsel time dockets
- 2 Whether the fresh docket information undermines the court’s earlier conclusion that the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the Landlord’s knowledge of the Subtenant
- 3 Proper award of trial costs and to whom they should be awarded
Ratio Decidendi
The court refused to reconsider its prior disposition because the newly produced docket entry was susceptible to multiple reasonable explanations and, together with information already before the court, did not alter the conclusion that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence about the Landlord’s knowledge of the Subtenant; accordingly the court awarded trial costs of $50,000 inclusive to Alexander N. Kovachis.
Court Disposition
Reconsideration request denied; trial costs awarded to Alexander N. Kovachis.
Orders
- Reconsideration request denied.
- Award trial costs in favour of Alexander N. Kovachis in the amount of $50,000 inclusive of outstanding costs, disbursements and applicable taxes.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Print N' Promotion (Canada) Ltd. v. Kovachis Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2011-03-15 Neutral citation 2011 ONCA 204 Docket numbers C51368 Judges Cronk, Eleanore Ann; Armstrong, Robert Patrick; Epstein, Gloria Jean Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Print N' Promotion (Canada) Ltd. v. Kovachis, 2011 ONCA 204 DATE: 20110315 DOCKET: C51368 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Cronk, Armstrong and Epstein JJ.A. BETWEEN Print N’ Promotion (Canada) Ltd., carrying on business as megaposter.ca Respondent and Norman Kovachis, Alexander N. Kovachis, Zoe Kovachis, Tommy Kovachis, William Kovachis, and Alexandra Lorraine Leyland Appellants Andrew M. Robinson and Megan Mackey, for the appellant Alexander N. Kovachis Jayson W. Thomas, for the remaining appellants Chris Dockrill, for the respondent Heard: December 17, 2010 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Lois B. Roberts of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 13 and December 14, 2009. COSTS ENDORSEMENT [1] Our reasons in this appeal were released on January 12, 2011. In those reasons, we requested written submissions from the parties on the issue of the costs of the trial. We have now received and reviewed those submissions. [2] In its written costs submissions, the respondent requests that we reconsider our disposition in this appeal based on information contained in the time dockets of the appellants’ trial counsel (produced for the purpose of the costs submissions that we requested). The respondent submits that this new information, viewed with other information on the record, contradicts an observation made by this court in our reasons for judgment. [3] We decline this reconsideration request. Contrary to the respondent’s contention, there are various possible meanings and explanations for the docket entry in question. Moreover, the other information relied on by the respondent in this regard was before this court when the appeal was heard. That information and the fresh information contained in the relevant docket entry do not alter our conclusion that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence that she relied on as establishing knowledge by the Landlord (the Kovachis family) of the Subtenant (the respondent) sufficient to make out the tort alleged. [4] With respect to the issue of the costs of the trial, we have considered the parties’ written submissions and supporting materials, including the detailed dockets of the appellants’ trial counsel. In light of all those materials, we conclude that an award of trial costs in favour of Alexander N. Kovachis is appropriate, fixed in the amount of $50,000, inclusive of outstanding costs awarded on motions determined in his favour, disbursements and all applicable taxes, and we so order. “E.A. Cronk J.A.” “Robert P. Armstrong J.A.” “Gloria Epstein J.A.”