CITATION: Sloane Capital Corp. v. Beacon Holdings Ltd., 2023 ONSC 928
COURT FILE NO.: DC-22-23
DATE: 2023 02 07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
SLOANE CAPITAL CORP.
Parjot Benipal, for the Plaintiff (Respondent)
Plaintiff (Respondent)
- and -
GREG NELSON and BEACON CONSUMER HOLDINGS LTD.
Alan S. Cofman and Vanessa De Sousa, for the Defendants (Appellants)
Defendants (Appellants)
HEARD: In Writing
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
LeMay J.
[1] The parties have a contractual dispute over whether the Appellant was obligated to pay the Respondent trailer fees as a result of financial instruments that the Respondent sold on behalf of the Appellant. After a trial, a Small Claims Court decision was issued granting the Respondent the right to the trailer fees from certain invoices that amounted to the limit of the Small Claims Court’s jurisdiction. There were other invoices that remained outstanding and the Plaintiff (Respondent) did not abandon those invoices.
[2] In a decision dated January 9th, 2023, I reversed the Small Claims Court decision on the basis that the Deputy Judge did not have jurisdiction to issue the decision because the total claim was beyond the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. It is now time to fix the costs of both the Small Claims Court proceeding and the appeal.
Positions of the Parties
[3] The Appellant, as the successful party, seeks costs in the sum of $19,016.45. This amount is made up of $500.00 on account of the Small Claims Court proceeding and $18,516.45 on account of the appeal. The basis for this claim is that the matter was of moderate complexity but high importance to the parties. The Appellant also justifies its claim for costs on the basis that the amount sought is reasonable, the Respondent should have agreed to resolve the appeal by accepting that the Small Claims Court proceeding was a nullity and that there was a reasonable offer to settle.
[4] The Respondent argues that the costs sought are excessive, that the Respondent did not take any improper steps and that the issues were of relatively limited complexity. The Respondent also argues that it made a reasonable offer to settle the action.
Analysis and Decision
[5] I start by noting that both sides were self-represented at the Small Claims Court trial. As a result, there seems to be no dispute that the costs for that proceeding are limited to $500.00. I am also of the view that the result of my decision is that the Respondent is entitled to those costs.
[6] This brings me to the offers to settle. While both sides made an offer to settle, neither offer can be assessed at this point. The offers both require the parties to resolve the merits of the case and not just the appeal. My decision did not resolve the merits of the case. As a result, the offers to settle do not assist me in assessing the reasonableness of either party’s position. They are both neutral factors. I also note that the provisions of Rule 49 are not engaged by either offer.
[7] This brings me to the provisions of Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Appellant was the successful party on this appeal, and there is no real dispute that the Appellant should be entitled to some costs for the appeal. The question is what those costs should be. The factors set out in Rule 57.01 assist in answering that question. The most important factors under Rule 57.01 are:
a) The complexity and importance of the issues.
b) The reasonable expectations of the losing party.
c) The amount claimed and recovered in the proceeding.
[8] I start by noting that the issues in this case were of, at most, moderate complexity. The case-law on the issues I had to determine was limited to a small number of cases and the arguments were focused on the narrow question of whether the Respondent (Plaintiff) was waiving any amounts over $35,000.00 and, if not, whether the Small Claims Court had jurisdiction over the complaint. There was also the question of whether the Small Claims Court judge interpreted the contract correctly but that argument was also a narrow and focused argument.
[9] Those matters were not difficult to either understand or resolve. As a result, I am of the view that the costs associated with the appeal should be relatively modest. Certainly, the nearly $20,000.00 sought by the Appellant is an amount that is not reasonable to award and is not an amount that would have been in the reasonable contemplation of any Respondent.
[10] This brings me to the reasonable expectations of the losing party. The Respondent has pointed out that their bill of costs shows a total expenditure of $3,605.00. While this is a more reasonable amount, I do not view this amount as being dispositive. In my view, the Appellant would have had to expend more time and effort on this appeal than the Respondent. As a result, I am of the view that the costs should be modestly more than what the Respondent’s bill of costs would suggest.
[11] I also note that the total claim in this case amounts to less than $70,000.00. There will now be a Superior Court action. The costs that should be paid for this appeal should be proportionate to the amount that is being claimed in the underlying action.
[12] I must also take into account the $500.00 that the Appellant is entitled to for the Small Claims Court matter. When I take that amount into account, I am of the view that the Respondent should be required to pay the Appellant the all-inclusive sum of $4,500.00 for the appeal, and the all-inclusive sum of $500.00 for the Small Claims Court action.
Conclusion
[13] The Respondent is required to pay the Appellant the total amount of $5,000.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements on account of both the Small Claims Court proceeding and the appeal. Those costs are to be paid within thirty (30) days of today’s date.
LeMay J.
Released: February 7, 2023
CITATION: Sloane Capital Corp. v. Beacon Holdings Ltd., 2023 ONSC 928
COURT FILE NO.: DC-22-23
DATE: 2023 02 07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
SLOANE CAPITAL CORP.
Plaintiff (Respondent)
- and –
GREG NELSON and BEACON CONSUMER HOLDINGS LTD.
Defendants (Appellant)
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
LeMay J.
Released: February 7, 2023