Court File and Parties
CITATION: MBE POS Inc v. Mohammed, 2016 ONSC 7403
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-00000015-00
DATE: 20161018
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
DAMBROT, HAMBLY and MEW JJ.
B E T W E E N :
MBE POS INC.
Respondent/Applicant
– and –
AKREM MUNIR MOHAMMED
Appellant/Respondent
Counsel:
O. Ogunniyi for the Respondent
M. Doli for the Appellant
HEARD: October 18, 2016
Oral Reasons for Judgment
M. DAMBROT J. (ORALLY):
[1] The Appellant brings this appeal from the order of Trimble J. fixing the costs of an action at $4,000.00 against him. He has not sought leave to appeal the costs order in his notice of appeal or in his factum.
[2] Section 133 of the Courts of Justice Act provides that no appeal lies to the Divisional Court without leave where the appeal is only as to costs that are made in the discretion of the court that made the order for costs. We do not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal without an order granting leave. The jurisprudence is clear that leave to appeal costs orders should be granted only sparingly and in the most obvious of cases. The applicant must show that there are strong grounds upon which the appellate court could find that the judge erred in the exercise of his or her discretion. (See Levy v. Downtown Fine Cars Inc. (1997), 104 O.A.C. 377 (Div. Ct.) and Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Mills, [2002] O.J. No. 5072 (Div. Ct.).)
[3] Even if we overlook the deficiencies in the appellant’s material, the appellant has been unable to demonstrate that an appeal from the $4,000 costs order in this case amounts to one of the most obvious cases. His argument is very case specific and turns substantially on a challenge to findings of fact made by the trial judge, the consideration given by the trial judge to the respondent’s conduct of the proceedings and the trial judge’s treatment of an offer to settle.
[4] Costs are discretionary. The trial judge gave consideration to the evidence and the applicable principles, made findings of fact and reached his conclusion about costs. This is not the sort of case where leave should be granted.
[5] Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused and this appeal is quashed for want of jurisdiction.
DAMBROT J.
HAMBLY J.
MEW J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 18, 2016
Date of Release: November 28, 2016
CITATION: MBE POS Inc v. Mohammed, 2016 ONSC 7403
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-00000015-00
DATE: 20161018
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
DAMBROT, HAMBLY and MEW JJ.
B E T W E E N :
MBE POS INC.
Respondent/Applicant
– and –
AKREM MUNIR MOHAMMED
Appellant/Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
M. DAMBROT J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: October 18, 2016
Date of Release: November 28, 2016