Court of Appeal for Ontario

Date: 2023-06-19 Docket: C69762

Before: Paciocco, George and Favreau JJ.A.

Between:

John Peters Plaintiff (Appellant/Respondent by way of cross-appeal)

And

SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., Kevin Lynch, Neil Bruce, Sylvain Girard and Hartland Paterson Defendants (Respondents/Appellants by way of cross-appeal)

Counsel: Jay Strosberg and Scott Robinson, for the appellant/respondent by way of cross-appeal Katherine L. Kay, Daniel S. Murdoch, Sinziana R. Hennig and Hesam Wafaei, for the respondents/appellants by way of cross-appeal Tina Q. Yang and Margaret Waddell, for the Law Foundation of Ontario, respondent by way of cross-appeal

Heard: November 8, 2022

On appeal from the order of Justice Paul M. Perell of the Superior Court of Justice, dated July 16, 2021, with reasons reported at 2021 ONSC 5021, and from the costs order, dated September 17, 2021 with reasons reported at 2021 ONSC 6161.

Costs Endorsement

[1] On May 24, 2023, we released a judgment in this matter dismissing the appellant’s appeal and the respondents’ cross-appeal: Peters v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2023 ONCA 360.

[2] At the conclusion of our reasons, we invited the parties to make submissions on costs if they were not able to reach an agreement. We have now received the cost submissions.

[3] On the main appeal, the respondents seek $71,460.52 in costs on a partial indemnity basis. The appellant argues that a costs award of $40,000 would be more appropriate, as it reflects the amount of costs awarded in Markowich v. Lundin Mining Corporation, 2023 ONCA 359, which was released at the same time as the decision in this case, and given that the appeal raises matters of public interest. We are not persuaded that the appeal raised matters of public interest and, as the respondents point out, the costs in Markowich were based on the parties’ agreement. Nevertheless, we have concluded that costs of $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the respondents are reasonable and appropriate in this case.

[4] The Law Foundation, which responded to the cross-appeal, seeks costs of $10,000. This amount is reasonable.

[5] Accordingly, the appellant is to pay costs of $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the respondents, and the respondents are to pay costs of $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the Law Foundation.

"David M. Paciocco J.A."

"J. George J.A."

"L. Favreau J.A."