SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Cameron Keller v. Adrian Schipper and 1438117 Ontario Limited
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice D.J. Gordon
COUNSEL: B. Kelly, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
W. Fehrenbach, for the Defendants/Appellants
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR DECISION RE: COSTS
1In my reasons for decision, released 12 March 2004, I invited counsel to deliver written submissions on costs if they could not reach an agreement.
2This was a collection action pertaining to an invoice for services rendered. The respondent discounted his invoice. The appellant sought a further reduction. The respondent was successful at trial and on appeal. At issue was the sum of $1,200.00, an amount less than the costs incurred by the parties before the appeal was heard.
3The respondent seeks a cost award of $6,135.78 on a substantial indemnity scale. On 13 June 2003, he offered to settle by way of a dismissal of the appeal without costs. Rule 49, however, does not apply.
4Costs are a discretionary award. The appropriate guidelines are set forth in section 131, Courts of Justice Act, and Rule 57. The amount involved was minimal and the issues were only important to these parties. Quite frankly, this was a lawsuit reasonable business people would not allow to go to trial.
5The respondent is entitled to substantial indemnity costs. Anything less would penalize him for attempting to collect on his invoice and make this litigation meaningless. The appellant had no reason to avoid payment.
6I have reviewed the bill of costs and see no basis to challenge any item. There is no indication what the client is to be charged, a relevant consideration. Substantial indemnity is not full indemnity.
7Accordingly, costs are awarded to the respondent fixed in the sum of $5,000.00 inclusive.
D.J. GORDON, J.
DATE: April 19, 2004