Meyknecht Lischer Contractors Ltd. v. Stanford, 2006 CanLII 42783 (ON SCDC)

COURT FILE NO.: 05-DV-1159

DATE: by written submissions

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MEYKNECHT LISCHER CONTRACTORS LTD. v. PETER STANFORD

BEFORE: Madam Justice M. Linhares de Sousa

COUNSEL: Douglas Menzies, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)

Peter Stanford, in person, for the Defendant (Appellant)

E N D O R S E M E N T R E G A R D I N G C O S T S

1I have now had the opportunity of considering the written submissions on costs presented by both parties to this action. Both parties are claiming their costs of the appeal. Based on the general principles enunciated in r. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, I make the following ruling on costs.

2There is no question that the Plaintiff (Respondent on Appeal) ("Plaintiff"), Meyknecht-Lischer Contractors Ltd. was the successful party on the appeal before me. As such, it is entitled to costs in this matter. I can find no basis for denying the Plaintiff its costs. There was no evidence before me to indicate that the Plaintiff conducted this litigation for any improper purpose as alleged by the Appellant/Defendant ("Appellant"). Based on the material filed before me, both parties must take equal responsibility for the failure to reach a settlement in this dispute.

3I have examined the bill of costs of counsel for the Plaintiff. The amount listed in the bill of costs, given the nature of the case, its lack of complexity, the importance of the issues, the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceedings, far exceeds what an unsuccessful party could reasonably be expected to pay.

4For the reasons mentioned above, I award the Plaintiff its costs that I fix at $3,000.00 payable by the Appellant forthwith.

M. Linhares de Sousa J.