El-Khodr v. Lackie et al.
[Indexed as: El-Khodr v. Lackie]
Ontario Reports
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Doherty, MacFarland and Rouleau JJ.A.
March 13, 2018
142 O.R. (3d) 719 | 2018 ONCA 250
Case Summary
Civil procedure — Appeal — Costs — Respondent bringing unsuccessful motion for reconsideration in writing — Appellants required to respond to motion — Costs to appellants fixed at $8,249.
The respondent brought an unsuccessful motion for reconsideration in writing. The court then considered the issue of costs.
Held, the appellants should be awarded their costs fixed at $8,249.
While the motion was without merit, the appellants were required to respond to it. The 18.6 hours spent by counsel responding to the motion was reasonable.
Cases Referred To
Ruling on Costs
Joseph Y. Obagi and Elizabeth A. Quigley, for moving party.
Barry A. Percival, Q.C., and James W. Gibson, for responding parties.
[1] BY THE COURT: -- This motion for reconsideration was made in writing. The motion was unsuccessful and while the moving party concedes the responding parties are entitled to their costs he argues that because the motion was made in writing those costs should be modest in the range of $1,000--$3,500, all inclusive. By way of example he cites "motions for leave to appeal et al."
[2] We begin with the observation that there is no hard and fast rule about the quantum of a costs order that is "appropriate" for motions in writing as opposed to other motions. A costs award should reflect the nature of the motion, the amount of work required to be put into a response to the motion, and the success achieved. Each case must be considered on its own particular facts.
[3] Here the motion required a review of the materials filed on the appeal as well as the arguments made at the hearing of this appeal as well as in the companion appeal of Cobb v. Long Estate, [2017] O.J. No. 4830, 2017 ONCA 717, argued at the same time and where overlapping issues were considered.
[4] In our view, the 18.6 hours spent by counsel responding to this motion is reasonable in all the circumstances.
[5] As we noted in our reasons dismissing the motion, the issues raised in the motion were properly the subject of a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court -- not a motion for reconsideration. While the motion was without merit, the responding party was nevertheless required to respond to it.
[6] Costs to the responding party fixed in the sum of $8,249, inclusive of disbursements and HST.
Order accordingly.
End of Document