CITATION: Levine v. Jack Aaron and Company Ltd., 2011 ONSC 2936
COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1664
DATE: 2011/05/13
ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
WILLIAM C. LEVINE
Michael K., E. Thiele, for the Appellant/Responding Party
Appellant/Responding Party
- and -
JACK AARON AND COMPANY LTD.
Kathryn G. Sutherland, for the Respondent/Moving Party
Respondent/Moving Party
HEARD: By Written Submissions
DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE COSTS OF THE MOTION
HEARD ON FEBRUARY 25, 2011
Power J.
[1] On February 25th last I advised counsel for the parties that I would deal with the issue of costs upon my return to the office. I have reviewed this matter and now make the following order with respect to costs.
[2] The respondent’s motion before me on February 18, 2011, was for a contempt order against Mr. Levine; for an order that the Court Enforcement Officer be directed to forthwith give vacant possession of the subject property to the respondent; an order that the appellant pay arrears of rent; an order that the appellant pay $34.22 per day for compensation for use of the unit from February 11th until the day he vacates the unit; and for costs.
[3] On February 25, 2011, I signed an order dealing with all of these issues save for the issue of costs.
[4] Mr. Thiele, counsel for Mr. Levine, argues that “Mr. Levine had substantial success on the motion as he faced the greatest prejudice with the risk of a finding of contempt and possible remedies for contempt ranging from fines to incarceration.”
[5] In my Reasons for Decision I stated that the request for a contempt order should be denied. I held that it was not clear to me that Mr. Levine’s conduct was contemptuous as he was purporting to exercise legal rights which he believed he possessed. Accordingly, Mr. Thiele is correct in his argument that Mr. Levine was successful on the motion with respect to the contempt issue.
[6] However, he was not successful with respect to the other issues before me, the central issue being the landlord’s desire to gain possession of its premises.
[7] Accordingly, notwithstanding that success on the motion was divided, it is my opinion that the landlord is entitled to an order for costs but not full costs.
[8] Counsel for the landlord, on the return of the motion, filed a Costs Outline form indicating fees of $3,625 for preparation, $2,100 as an estimated counsel fee on the return of the motion, disbursements in the amount of $222, and HST in the amount of $483.60, for a total of $6,430.60.
[9] Taking into consideration the foregoing comments and the fact that the legal issues were somewhat novel, I fix the amount of costs in the total amount of $2,000 (that is, inclusive of fees, disbursements and taxes).
[10] Accordingly, an order will issue that Mr. Levine forthwith pay to the respondent company the costs of the motion fixed at $2,000.
Power J.
Released: May 13, 2011
CITATION: Levine v. Jack Aaron and Company Ltd., 2011 ONSC 2936
COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1664
DATE: 2011/05/13
ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
WILLIAM C. LEVINE
Appellant/Responding Party
- and –
JACK AARON AND COMPANY LTD.
Respondent/Moving Party
DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE COSTS OF THE MOTION
HEARD ON FEBRUARY 25, 2011
Power J.
Released: May 13, 2011