Susin v. Precision Builders (Windsor) Limited
The Court will not interfere with the trial judge's broadly worded terms of reference after he presided over a lengthy trial, but paragraph 18—being inconsistent with paragraph 12 on whether set-offs apply before pre-judgment interest—must be removed; the question of set-off timing is for the trial judge to determine.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2009 ONCA 5
- Parties
- Plaintiff (appellant): John Susin; Defendant (respondent): Eugene Goodreau; Defendant (respondent): Goodreau Excavating Ltd.; Defendant (respondent): Precision Builders (Windsor) Limited; Defendant (respondent): Canadian General Insurance Company; Defendant (respondent): Pasquale D'Amore
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 7 January 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Setting Terms of Reference Following Trial
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part: paragraph 18 of the Order removed; otherwise the Court declined to interfere with the trial judge's framing of the terms of reference; no costs.
- Legal Topics
- Terms of Reference, Set Off, Pre Judgment Interest, Reference Hearing, Costs
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Susin
Plaintiff (appellant)
Eugene Goodreau
Defendant (respondent)
Goodreau Excavating Ltd.
Defendant (respondent)
Precision Builders (Windsor) Limited
Defendant (respondent)
Canadian General Insurance Company
Defendant (respondent)
Pasquale D'Amore
Defendant (respondent)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Setting Terms of Reference Following Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the terms of reference framed by the trial judge are too broad and include matters outside the dredging contract
- 2 Whether paragraph 18 of the terms of reference is inconsistent with paragraph 12 of the trial judgment regarding set-off before pre-judgment interest
- 3 Whether the Court of Appeal should interfere with the trial judge's formulation of terms of reference after a lengthy trial
Ratio Decidendi
The Court will not interfere with the trial judge's broadly worded terms of reference after he presided over a lengthy trial, but paragraph 18—being inconsistent with paragraph 12 on whether set-offs apply before pre-judgment interest—must be removed; the question of set-off timing is for the trial judge to determine.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part: paragraph 18 of the Order removed; otherwise the Court declined to interfere with the trial judge's framing of the terms of reference; no costs.
Orders
- Appeal allowed in part by removing paragraph 18 of the Order.
- No costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Susin v. Precision Builders (Windsor) Limited Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2009-01-07 Neutral citation 2009 ONCA 5 Docket numbers C48549 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; MacPherson, James C.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick Subject Civil Decision Content CITATION: Susin v. Precision Builders (Windsor) Limited, 2009 ONCA 5 DATE: 20090106 DOCKET: C48549 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO Laskin, MacPherson and Armstrong JJ.A. BETWEEN: Court File No. 242/85 John Susin Plaintiff (Appellant) and Eugene Goodreau and Goodreau Excavating Ltd., Precision Builders (Windsor) Limited, Canadian General Insurance Company and Pasquale D’Amore Defendants (Respondents) AND BETWEEN: Court File No. 199/85 John Susin Plaintiff (Appellant) and Precision Builders (Windsor) Limited, Canadian General Insurance Company, Eugene Goodreau and Goodreau Excavating Ltd. Defendants (Respondent) John Susin, appearing in person Luigi Di Pierdomenico, for the respondents Heard: January 5, 2009 On appeal from the order of Justice John H. Brockenshire of the Superior Court of Justice dated February 15, 2008. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant appeals from the order of Brockenshire J. dated 15 February 2008 setting the terms of a reference to be heard with respect to certain issues following a lengthy trial conducted by him. [2] The appellant claims that the terms of reference as framed by the trial judgment are too broad and include matters (especially litigation, accounting and bookkeeping costs) outside the dredging contract that is the core subject matter of the reference. [3] We disagree. Paragraph 11 of the trial judgment is broadly worded and permits the trial judge to establish terms of reference related to the subject matter of the litigation. We can see no basis for interfering with the trial judge’s formulation of the terms of reference in a case where he has presided over a very lengthy trial. [4] The appellant submits, and the respondents concede, that paragraph 18 of the terms of reference is inconsistent with paragraph 12 of the trial judgment. For clarity, the question whether any set-off for deductions should be made before pre-judgment interest is accrued is a matter for the trial judge. [5] The appeal is allowed, but only to the extent of removing paragraph 18 of the Order. [6] No costs.