CITATION: Brantford (Corporation of the City) v. Hill, 2012 ONSC 678
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-10-249ML
(Superior Court File No.: CV-08-334)
DATE: 2012-01-27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BRANTFORD
Neal J. Smitheman and Tracy A. Pratt, for the Plaintiff/Responding Party
Plaintiff/Responding Party
- and -
HAZEL HILL, AARON DETLOR, THE HAUDENOSAUNEE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
Jessica Orkin, for the Defendant/Moving Party, Aaron Detlor
Defendants/Moving Parties
Louis P. Strezos, for the Defendants/Moving Parties, The Haudenosaunee Development Institute and Hazel Hill
HEARD: at Hamilton
CRANE J.
[1] Counsel for the moving parties have each submitted written submissions on the reserved issue of the disposition of costs for the subject motion for leave to appeal. I have considered the jurisprudence and Rules together with submissions of counsel. I have concluded that the respondent should have its costs of the motion to be fixed on the partial indemnity scale.
[2] I observe that the applicants on the motion had a full hearing before the motions judge, including extensive submissions on constitutional issues. The applicants have the right to pursue these issues continuing through the trial of the action. This will be the forum that the parties’ legal arguments for the establishment of precedent will be applied to the facts to be found. The motion for leave by these applicants was not on a basis of a foreclosure of access to justice.
[3] Justice requires the respondent have its costs of the motion. The applicants’ second bite of the apple should not be at the cost of the respondent.
[4] The applicants have not disclosed their funding arrangements in support of their request for a no costs order. Nor have they disclosed the costs that they have paid, in support of their submission for a reduction to the respondent’s costs.
[5] As submitted by the respondent’s counsel to the costs issue, this was no ordinary leave motion – in scope of challenge of review required and of importance to the respondent.
[6] The bill submitted is generally reasonable in the circumstances of this proceeding, subject to a rounding down. I allow the respondent its costs of the motion for leave to appeal in the sum of $28,000.00 all inclusive.
CRANE J.
Released: January 27, 2012
CITATION: Brantford (Corporation of the City) v. Hill, 2012 ONSC 678
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-10-249ML
(Superior Court File No.: CV-08-334)
DATE: 2012-01-27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BRANTFORD
Plaintiff/Responding Party
- and –
HAZEL HILL, AARON DETLOR, THE HAUDENOSAUNEE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
Defendants/Moving Parties
COSTS JUDGMENT
CRANE J.
DSC:mg
Released: January 27, 2012