DATE: 20040928

DOCKET: C40101

C40165

C40170

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

RE:

C40101

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA (Respondent (Appellant in Divisional Court) – and – ERIN MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED, MEADOWPINES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, CENTURY CITY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, ORLANDO CORPORATION, 1251941 ONTARIO LIMITED, 593416 ONTARIO INC., 488236 ONTARIO INC., PARK RIDGE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD., RICHILL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, TOP FLIGHT VENTURES INC. AND PEEL PROPERTIES INC. (Appellants (Respondents in Divisional Court))

A N D B E T W E E N:

C40165

GUGLIETTI BROTHERS INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND ROWHEDGE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (Appellants)

Appellants/Respondents in Divisional Court – and – THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON and THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON ((Respondents) Respondents/Appellants in Divisional Court)

A N D B E T W E E N:

C40170

PALETTA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION AND BY-WAYS CONSTRUCTION INC. ((Appellants) Respondent/Appellant in Divisional Court) – and – THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGTON AND THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON ((Respondents) Appellant/Respondent in Divisional Court)

BEFORE:

O’CONNOR A.C.J.O., WEILER AND GOUDGE JJ.A.

COUNSEL:

Paul Bates and Lynda Townsend Renaud and Robyn Campbell

for the appellant C40101

Mark Noskiewicz and David Bronskill

for the appellants C40165

Scott A. Snider and Shelley Kaufman

for the appellants C40170

Thomas R. Lederer and Susan E. Friedman

for the respondent City of Mississauga

Robert G. Doumani and Patricia A. Foran

for the respondent Regional Municipality of Halton and the Corporation of the City of Burlington

HEARD:

January 14, 15, and 16, 2004

C O S T S E N D O R S E M E N T

[1] On June 25, 2004 this court issued its reasons disposing of what were in essence two appeals. Since then, the court has received and reviewed the parties’ submissions on costs.

[2] In the first appeal, brought by a set of developers led by Erin Mills Corporation Limited against the City of Mississauga, Mississauga was fully successful. It seeks its costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $70,379.25. The appellant developers propose $30,000.00.

[3] In the second appeal, brought by two sets of developers Guglietti and Paletta, against the Region of Halton and the City of Burlington the appeals were dismissed as was Halton’s cross-appeal on a single issue. Halton and Burlington seek full indemnity in the total amount of approximately $176,000.00 or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs totalling $133,370.19. The developers propose no costs or in the alternative a total of $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

[4] In this matter there is no reason why costs should not follow the event. Nor is there any reason for costs on a scale higher than partial indemnity.

[5] In both matters the issues were complex and important. They were, in most respects, common. However, they had in large measure been canvassed twice before, before the Ontario Municipal Board and the Divisional Court. The argument of the appeals was done together and consumed two and one-half days of court time. Halton and Burlington were represented by common counsel.

[6] In all the circumstances, we would award costs on a partial indemnity basis to Mississauga against the Erin Mills group of Developers in the amount of $50,000 and to Halton and Burlington together against the Guglietti and Paletta Developers also in the amount of $50,000. Failing agreement otherwise, Halton and Burlington are to divide this sum equally between them. These costs are inclusive of disbursements, G.S.T. and the costs of the leave motion.

“Dennis O’Connor A.C.J.O.”

“Karen Weiler J.A.”

_ “S.T. Goudge J.A.”