Willis v. Veeravagupillai, 2015 ONSC 746

CITATION: Willis v. Veeravagupillai, 2015 ONSC 746

COURT FILE NO.: DC-12-0081-00

DATE: 2015 02 02

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: PETA GAYE WILLIS v. JENANI VEERAVAGUPILLAI

BEFORE: LEMON J.

COUNSEL: Peta Gaye Willis, on her own behalf

Douglas Levitt, for the Respondent

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

1On November 21, 2014, I dismissed Ms. Willis’s motion. Unfortunately, Ms. Willis left before costs could be dealt with. I therefore requested written costs submissions. Ms. Veeravagupillai was to provide her costs submissions within ten days and Ms. Willis was to file her submissions within ten days thereafter.

2I have received Ms. Veeravagupillai’s submissions but, as of this date, I have received no responding submissions from Ms. Willis.

3Ms. Veeravagupillai seeks costs fixed in the amount of $8,963.38 inclusive of HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

Legal Authorities

4Rule 57.01 of our Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the factors that the court may consider when determining costs. The relevant factors that I should consider here are:

(a) the result in the proceeding,

(b) the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged and the hours spent by that lawyer;

(c) the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;

(d) the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;

(e) the complexity of the proceeding;

(f) the importance of the issues;

(g) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;

5Modern costs rules are designed to foster three fundamental purposes: (1) to partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation; (2) to encourage settlement; and (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants: Fong v. Chan, 1999 2052 (C.A.), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, at para. 22.

6Costs awards, at the end of the day, should reflect “what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties”: see Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, 2004 14579 (C.A.), 71 O.R. (3d) 291, at para. 24.

Analysis

7The underlying factual dispute in this proceeding will likely only be resolved at trial. Either Ms. Willis or Ms. Veeravagupillai has been badly treated by the other. I can make no determination of that at this time and within this motion. On this motion, Ms. Willis attempted to bring those issues into the very narrow issue of this appeal. Sadly for Ms. Willis, her motion had no legal basis and could not succeed.

8Accordingly, Ms. Veeravagupillai was successful and is presumed to be entitled to her costs.

9The motion was also initially brought on an ex-parte basis and Ms. Veeravagupillai was required to respond quickly and at length. This has required counsel for Ms. Veeravagupillai to attend in court on two occasions.

10From my review of the Bill of Costs, I see that, where possible, the work has been done by a junior and therefore less expensive counsel. The hours required and the rates requested are reasonable, if not low.

11In all of the circumstances, I allow Ms. Veeravagupillai her costs fixed in the amount of $8,963.38.

Lemon J