CITATION: Rajaratnam v. Wilson, 2011 ONCA 353 |
|
DATE: 20110505 |
|
DOCKET: C52940 |
|
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO |
|
Laskin, Feldman and MacPherson JJ.A. |
|
BETWEEN |
|
Singarajar Edward Rajaratnam |
|
Applicant (Appellant) |
|
and |
|
David S. Wilson |
|
Respondent (Respondent in Appeal) |
|
Michael Czuma, for the appellant |
|
Mark Elkin, for the respondent |
|
Heard and released orally: May 4, 2011 |
|
On appeal from the judgment of Justice J. Stephen O’Neill of the Superior Court of Justice, dated October 20, 2010. |
|
ENDORSEMENT |
|
[1] The appellant appeals the judgment of O’Neill J. dated 20 October 2010 dismissing his application to assess two of the respondent’s accounts. One of the accounts, delivered in 1999, was for $33,257.47 and dealt with legal fees collected from the settlement of claims arising from two motor vehicle accidents in 1996. The second account, delivered in 2008, was for $6,776.96 relating to legal fees for two more motor vehicle accidents in 2001. The appellant also moves to introduce fresh evidence, seeking a new assessment hearing, in order to refer all his accounts with the respondent for assessment.
[2] We see no error in the application judge’s reasons. As he noted, the parties signed a consent in 2001 relating to previous legal accounts, which would include the 1999 account for $33,257.47. The appellant received a repayment of $2,500 pursuant to this agreement. He acknowledged in the agreement that he “had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice.”
[3] With respect to the 2008 account for $6,776.96, we are not persuaded that there are special circumstances that would justify the assessment of this account.
[4] Finally, the fresh evidence would not change the result. As the cross-examination of the appellant on his affidavit makes clear, the appellant only decided to seek to have his old accounts assessed after he decided that the legal bills to his wife were too high. The wife’s accounts are being assessed. The appellant’s accounts, which he accepted over a 12-year period, should not be re-opened because of his dissatisfaction with the legal fees being charged to his wife, especially since those fees are already subject to a proper assessment.
[5] The motion to introduce fresh evidence is denied. The appeal is dismissed. The respondent is entitled to his costs of the appeal fixed at $5,000 inclusive of applicable taxes.
“J. I. Laskin J.A.”
“K. Feldman J.A.”
“J. C. MacPherson J.A.”