Decisions of the Court of Appeal

Decision Information

Decision Content

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Trobradovic v. Izzo, 2015 ONCA 32

DATE: 20150121

DOCKET: C58884

Weiler, Feldman and Benotto JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Edin Trobradovic

Appellant (Defendant)

and

Alfonso Izzo and Elvira Izzo

Respondents (Plaintiffs)

Domenic Saverino, for the appellant

Gregory Gryguc, for the respondents

Heard and released orally: December 12, 2014

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Edward M. Morgan of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 2, 2014.

ENDORSEMENT

[1]          The appellant mortgagor appeals the judgment granting the respondent mortgagees $876,797.55 for funds owed under a mortgage agreement.

[2]          The appellant alleges, that the motion judge erred by granting judgment instead of directing an accounting because the appellant contested the amounts owing.

[3]          The motion judge had evidence before him to substantiate the claims of the respondents. The appellant contested the amounts owing but did not file evidence to confirm what amounts were in fact owed. He now seeks to file fresh evidence which purports to establish, among other things, arithmetical errors in the accounting.

[4]          The motion judge concluded that the appellant had the information available to him to verify the amounts owing, and the failure to provide this represented a delay tactic instead of a substantive objection. Adjournments had been granted to the appellant on more than one occasion.

[5]          It is also significant that the motion judge was advised by prior counsel for the appellant that the matter had been resolved, subject to a final determination of the amount of the construction liens. These amounts are readily determined as a matter of public record.

[6]          We see no error in the approach of the motion judge. On the evidence, it was open to him to establish the amount owing. To the extent that there was an arithmetical error, if any, the proper approach would have been to return to the motion judge for directions.

[7]          For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents

fixed at $5,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.             

                                                                                                    “K.M. Weiler J.A.”

                                                                                                   “K. Feldman J.A.”

 “M.L. Benotto J.A.”

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.