Boyd v. Wright Environmental Management Inc., 2010 ONCA 24

CITATION: Boyd v. Wright Environmental Management Inc., 2010 ONCA 24

DATE: 20100115

DOCKET: C47054

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Juriansz, Watt and Epstein JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Ed Boyd

Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Wright Environmental Management Inc., 1207974 Ontario Ltd.,

James Wright and Eileen Wright

Defendants (Appellants)

Michael Kleinman and Paul Wronski for the defendants (appellants)

Chris Dockrill for the plaintiff (respondent)

Heard: June 25, 2008

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Keith A. Hoilett of the Superior Court of Justice dated April 2, 2007.

COST ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant, Wright Environmental Management Inc., (WEMI), was substantially unsuccessful on this appeal. However, we found that the trial judge erred by granting relief against 1207974 Ontario Ltd. as it only held the patents that WEMI was licensed to exploit. We urged counsel to settle 1207974 Ontario Ltd.’s entitlement to costs at trial. They have not done so and have submitted extensive written submissions on costs.

[2] In our view, relatively little trial time was dedicated to the liability of 1207974 Ontario Ltd. The trial judge specifically remarked that much trial time was wasted by WEMI calling evidence “in an attempt to tarnish the reputation” of the respondent. Given the minor role played by1207974 Ontario Ltd. at trial and its responsibility for the incurring of further costs by requiring the preparation of written submissions on costs, we would fix the trial costs of 1207974 Ontario Ltd. in the amount of $5000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

[3] The respondent established no basis for setting off the costs awarded to 1207974 Ontario Ltd. against the trial costs awarded to him from WEMI.

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”

“David Watt J.A.”

“G.J. Epstein J.A.”