Court File and Parties

CITATION: Durakovic v. Guzman, 2014 ONSC 6571

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-14-018

COURT FILE NO.: 06-CV-319553-PD2

DATE: 20141113

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: DR. ASAF DURAKOVIC, Appellant

AND:

TANIA GUZMAN, THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK, POLICE SERVICES BOARD, PETER HEAD, SCOTT BROWNE, YORK REGION CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY, DEENA HUGH-YEUN, BONITA MAJONIS, DENISE LEHMAN BROWN and CERTAIN UNNAMED PERSONS, Respondents

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Lederer

COUNSEL: Murray Klippenstein & W. Cory Wanless, for the Appellant David R. Richmon, for the Respondent, Tania Guzman No one appeared for the remaining Respondents

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] This was an appeal of the refusal by the Master to allow certain amendments to the Statement of Claim.

[2] I do not accept the submissions made on behalf of the respondent that this is a case where there should be no costs awarded. This case is not so important to the evolution of the law or to the public interest to suggest that such a determination would be warranted. In this case, any amendment to the Statement of Defence that is required is unlikely to be complicated or time- consuming. If this were a reason to find there should be no costs, it would be the case whenever an amendment to a Statement of Claim was allowed through an order of the court. The fact that there was delay does not necessarily point to cost or prejudice to the respondent. These parties have been fighting, bitterly it would seem, for some time. The amendments do nothing more than add the specifics of comments allegedly made by the respondent at a meeting with the police that was, long ago, established as an important moment in this case. In the circumstances, it is difficult for me to see what, if any, costs were thrown away.

[3] The appellant was successful. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event.

[4] I do not find the costs requested to be unreasonable. On behalf of the respondent, it is said that the hours are too high (107.8 hours). This would be so if they were only the costs of the appeal. As it is, they represent the time spent, both on the motion that was heard by the Master and on the appeal. I do not find what is being requested out-of-line.

[5] Costs are awarded for the appearance before the Master in the amount of $5,788.04 and for the appeal in the amount of $9,617.71.

[6] Having made the award, I now order that the order be stayed. Counsel for the respondent points out that there are two outstanding costs orders made against the appellant in favour of the respondent:

• Court File No: FC-04-18833 – $125,155.53 + interest as of the date of the submission of the respondent of $36,295.10 + costs of the appeal which was dismissed for delay of $750, for a total of $162, 200.63; and,
• Court File No: FC-04-019783 – $146,715.23 + interest as of the date of the submission of the respondent of $24,208.01, for a total of $170,923.24.

[7] A party cannot come to court and seek its assistance in circumstances where that party is unprepared to respect the orders the court has made.

[8] The stay imposed will be lifted when the two costs orders made against the appellant, to which I have referred, have been paid. Until those payments are made, no interest will collect on the costs order I have made today.

[9] No further order of the court is required for the stay to be lifted.

LEDERER J.

Date: 20141113