Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: MGRDICHIAN v. MGRDICHIAN
BEFORE: Justice John Jennings
COUNSEL: Robert Klotz, for the Respondent Sandra Secord, for the Applicant
HEARD: July 26, 2005
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Jennings J.
1I have had the advantage of written submissions from counsel on this motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from the order of the motions judge.
2Leave was refused.
3Counsel for the successful responding party asks for fees on a partial indemnity scale of $12,400.00 which includes fees for two counsel attending on the motion. Both counsel have in excess of 24 years experience.
4The issue before me was simple: whether either or both of the two branches of Rule 62.02 were engaged. In my opinion, this did not require the attention of two senior counsel. Further, as both counsel appeared before the motions judge, they were presumably up to speed on the issues to be argued and I would not have thought extensive preparation was required.
5Without in any way suggesting that the time shown to have been spent in preparation was not spent, I believe the fees requested to be out of all proportion to what might be anticipated on a leave application in what is essentially a family law dispute.
6The matter was argued in something under two hours, considerably more than what is normally to be expected on leave motions but equally considerably less than the four hours requested by counsel.
7I think the time requested, and the material filed perhaps indicated a misapprehension as to what is required to be presented to a judge of this court on a leave application and may indirectly have contributed to the amount of the fees claimed for the time incurred.
8In my opinion an appropriate fee on the motion would be $4,000.00. I allow the disbursements as submitted at $568.00.
9GST shall be added to both the fees and the disbursements.
Jennings J.
DATE: July 27, 2005