|
Civil Litigation - Costs - Discretion [CJA s.130]. Sorbam Investments Ltd. v. Litwack
In Sorbam Investments Ltd. v. Litwack (Ont CA, 2022) the Court of Appeal considers a court's CJA s.130 discretion to vary from standard cost law [ss.127-129]:[24] Although not pursued in oral submissions before this court, the appellant’s written submissions challenged the trial judge’s decision not to exercise her discretion under s. 130 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 (the “CJA”), to apply an interest rate lower than the presumptive rate under s. 127, or to allow prejudgment interest in relation to the loss of value of the respondent’s property for a shorter period than the presumptive period in s. 128. We do not accept this submission.
[25] Section 130 of the CJA gives a trial judge a discretion to depart from the presumptive interest rate for prejudgment interest and from the presumptive time period for which prejudgment interest is payable (or to disallow interest entirely) where the trial judge “considers it just to do so”. An appellate court may only interfere with a trial judge’s exercise of discretion in relation to the rate or period for prejudgment interest where there has been a wrongful exercise of discretion by the trial judge in that they gave no weight or insufficient weight to relevant considerations: Stellarbridge Management Inc. v. Magna International (Canada) Inc. (2004), 2004 CanLII 9852 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 263 (C.A.), at para. 85, leave to appeal refused, [2004] S.C.C.A. No. 371.
|
