Court File and Parties
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-14/12
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Traffic Law Advocate (E.D) Professional Corporation, Plaintiff (Respondent)
AND:
Guo Yang, Defendant (Appellant)
BEFORE: Herman J.
COUNSEL: Miguel Maruszki, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Guo Yang, in person
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
1Toronto Law Advocate (“TLA”) seeks costs arising from the dismissal of Mr. Yang’s appeal.
2TLA seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $5,565.54. TLA submits that the following factors are relevant to the determination of costs: Mr. Yang unnecessarily increased their costs, forcing TLA to devote extensive time and resources for the services of a lawyer; the appeal had no merit; the recovery of fees is important to the livelihood of TLA; the lawyer spent over 15 hours of intensive work in preparation for the appeal; Mr. Yang accepted the majority of the fees at issue; and Mr. Yang’s conduct was vexatious.
3Mr. Yang submits that the request for costs is excessive. He notes the following: the claim for lawyer’s fees is too high given that the lawyer has only seven years of experience; the amount of time spent on the file was excessive; the issues on the appeal were simple; the conduct of TLA’s counsel was unreasonable; and the costs should be proportionate to the judgment amount of $772.06.
4The amount at issue is important in determining the costs. However, Mr. Yang has to bear responsibility for bringing the appeal. It would have been reasonable for him to have expected that the opposing party’s costs would be significantly greater than the amount of the judgment. At the same time, Mr. Yang could not reasonably have expected to pay costs reflecting 19 hours of preparation and research on an appeal involving relatively straightforward issues and an award of $772.06.
5In the circumstances, a costs award of $2,500 is fair and reasonable. Mr. Yang is therefore to pay costs in the amount of $2,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements.
Herman J.
Date: July 4, 2013