COURT FILE NO.: DC 08-037
DATE: 2008-10-16
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: V. GIBBONS CONTRACTING LIMITED v. LOSANI HOMES (1998) LTD.
BEFORE: HARRIS J.
COUNSEL: R.C. Harason, counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff D.A. Schmuck, counsel on behalf of the Defendant
HEARD: September 19, 2008
ADDENDUM TO THE ENDORSEMENT OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
[1] Counsel in this matter has sought clarification as to the original endorsement and whether Losani may pursue its appeal to compel re-attendance to answer discovery questions and to allow further examinations for discovery. In addition, counsel desired a more pointed response to his motion to expunge a costs outline.
[2] The motion to quash the appeal was dismissed in its entirety. The scope of the endorsement therefore includes the issues of re-attendance, further examinations for discovery and the costs outline.
[3] Costs may be awarded to a party even if that party fails to provide a costs outline, 1313963 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Sin City Bar and Eatery) v. Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission), [2008] O.J. No. 1849 (Div. Ct.); Gagne v. Toronto Police Services Board, [2008] O.J. No. 1474. If there is no prejudice to the other party, and procedural and substantive justice can still be accomplished based on oral submissions or a bill of costs, non-compliance with Rule 57.01(6) is not fatal. Research in Motion Ltd. v. Atari Inc., 2007 33987 (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 3146 at para. 41; Cango Inc. v. D&S Equipment Ltd. (c.o.b. York Truck Centre), [2006] O.J. No. 3046; 158270 Ontario Limited v. Laudervest Developments Limited, [2006] O.J. No. 3371 at para. 31-32; Beneficial Investment (1990) Inc. v. Hongkong Bank of Canada, [2006] O.J. No. 1428, at para. 5; Hawley v. Bapoo, 2006 24333 (ON SC), [2006] O.J. No. 2938 (though I note the quantum was varied on appeal, the principles regarding a Bill of Costs in Form 57A and a Costs Outline in Form 57B were not overruled).
[4] There was no indication of prejudice to either party, and neither was there any indication that procedural and substantive justice required the costs outline be expunged. As such the costs outline is not expunged, and as previously stated, costs will be the cause on appeal to Divisional Court.
HARRIS J.
DATE: October 16, 2008
COURT FILE NO.: DC 08-037
DATE: 20081016
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: V. GIBBONS CONTRACTING LIMITED v. LOSANI HOMES (1998) LTD.
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice C.R. Harris
COUNSEL: R.C. Harason, for the Plaintiff D.A. Schmuck, for the Defendant
ADDENDUM TO THE ENDORSEMENT OF OCTOBER 2, 2008
HARRIS J.
DATE: October 16, 2008