COURT FILE NO.: 647/01, 696/01, 383/02/ 384/02/518/02

DATE: 20041025

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

THEN, FORESTELL AND PARDU JJ.

B E T W E E N:

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

Thomas R. Lederer/Susan E. Friedman, for the Appellant

Appellant

• and -

ERIN MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED, MEADOWPINES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CENTURY CITY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, ORLANDO CORPORATION, 1251941 ONTARIO LIMITED, 593416 ONTARIO INC., 488236 ONTARIO INC., PARK RIDGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD., RICHILL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, TOP FLIGHT VENTURES INC., PEEL PROPERTIES INC.

Lynda J. Townsend Renaud, for the Respondents Orlando Corporation et al;

Mark Noskiewicz/Richard Storrey for the Respondent Erin Mills Development Corp.

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

Appellant

• and –

MID-AIRPORT DEVELOPMENTS LTD. (“MID-AIRPORT)

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON AND THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON

Appellants

• and –

CON-DRAIN COMPANY LTD., GUGLIETTI BROTHERS INVESTMENTS LIMITED, ROWHEDGE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, PALETTA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and CAMBRIDGE SHOPPING CENTRE

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

GUGLIETTI BROTHERS INVESTMENTS LIMITED and ROWHEDGE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Appellants

• and –

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON

Respondent

Ira T. Kagan, for the Appellant

Garth Walkden, for the Respondent

Robert Doumani/Patricia Foran, for the Appellants

Mark Noskiewicz/Richard Storrey, for Guglietti Brothers Investments Limited and Rowhedge Construction Limited

Scott Snider, for Paletta International Corporation

Mark Noskiewicz/Richard Storrey, for the Appellants

Robert Doumani/Patricia Foran, for the Respondent

HEARD: Written submissions

Pardu J.:

1The issue of costs was deferred in these matters at the request of the parties until a decision was rendered by the Court of Appeal.

2I see no reason why costs should not follow the result in the Divisional Court, on a partial indemnity basis.

Mississauga v. Erin Mills – 647/2001

3The motion for leave to appeal occupied two and a half days of hearing time and the appeal four days, although combined with other matters. The successful party, Mississauga, claims $149,227.11 in costs, inclusive of GST. The Respondent does not attack the hourly rate, nor the time spent, nor disbursements. They submit that the overall amount claimed is just too much, that it is not fair and reasonable. (See Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario 2004 14579 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 2634.)

4Rule 57.01 criteria which have some application here include the amounts at stake, and the complexity of the proceedings. The decision in this case had significant financial ramifications that extended beyond the interests of the parties, who themselves had a lot of money at stake.

5In reviewing the bill of costs, I question whether it was necessary and reasonable for three counsel to appear on behalf of Mississauga on both the leave application and the appeal, and I reduce the counsel fees claimed by $13,650. I cannot second guess the time spent in preparation, nor can I say that it was disproportionate to the amount at stake. While the amount claimed exceeds that claimed by Halton and Burlington, in the latter case the leave motion proceeded on consent. I award the City of Mississauga costs fixed at $134,500, inclusive of GST against the Respondents, jointly and severally.

Regional Municipality of Halton v. City of Burlington, 383/02, 518/02

6The City and the Region were jointly represented by the same counsel. The total partial indemnity claim including GST amounts to $97,713.51. The City was wholly successful on all issues. The Region achieved partial success. In recognition of this difference I award one half of partial indemnity costs to the Region. The motion for leave to appeal proceeded on consent, yet the City and Region claim $19,923.75 plus GST for this work. All in all, it would be fair and reasonable to reduce the global sum of $97,713.51 to $90,000.00 including GST. I award the city $45,000 in costs, and the Region $22,500, both inclusive of GST jointly and severally against Guglietta Brothers Investments Limited, Rowhedge Construction Limited, Palleta International Corporation and By-Ways Construction Inc. and Con-Drain Company Ltd. on all of the appeals. Although Con-Drain Company Ltd. took no part in the argument, it did not consent to the relief requested on appeal. Cambridge Shopping Centre was excluded from liability for costs by agreement.

Peel Region v. Mid-Airport Developments Ltd., 696/2001

7Peel Region was wholly successful, and claims partial indemnity costs of $57,050.87. Included in that amount is $580.00 for a motion to stay before the OMB. That amount is disallowed as I do not believe this court has the power to award costs for that motion. The hourly rate and counsel fee claimed are reasonable. While Peel’s counsel claims at the top rate for his years of experience, he was not assisted by co-counsel and the matter was complex. The motion for leave to appeal was contested and occupied two days. All in all, I award Peel Region costs inclusive of GST fixed at $54,000.00 against Mid-Airport Developments Ltd.

COURT FILE NO.: 647/01, 696/01, 383/02, 384/02, 518/02

DATE: 20041025

B E T W E E N :

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA

Thomas R. Lederer/Susan E. Friedman, for the Appellant

Appellant

• and -

ERIN MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED, MEADOWPINES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CENTURY CITY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, ORLANDO CORPORATION, 1251941 ONTARIO LIMITED, 593416 ONTARIO INC., 488236 ONTARIO INC., PARK RIDGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD., RICHILL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, TOP FLIGHT VENTURES INC., PEEL PROPERTIES INC.

Lynda J. Townsend Renaud, for the Respondents Orlando Corporation et al;

Mark Noskiewicz/Richard Storrey for the Respondent Erin Mills Development Corp.

AND BETWEEN:

THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL

Appellant

• and –

MID-AIRPORT DEVELOPMENTS LTD. (“MID-AIRPORT)

Respondent

AND BETWEEN:

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON AND THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON

Appellants

• and –

CON-DRAIN COMPANY LTD., GUGLIETTI BROTHERS INVESTMENTS LIMITED, ROWHEDGE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, PALETTA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION and CAMBRIDGE SHOPPING CENTRE

Respondents

AND BETWEEN:

GUGLIETTI BROTHERS INVESTMENTS LIMITED and ROWHEDGE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Appellants

• and –

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON

Respondent

E N D O R S E M E N T