CITATION.: The Effort Trust Company v. Perron, 2025 ONSC 2182
COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-273
DATE: 2025-04-07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
THE EFFORT TRUST COMPANY
K. Ley, counsel for the Appellant
Landlord/Applicant
- and -
SUSAN PERRON
Susan Perron, Self-Represented
Tenant/Respondent
HEARD: February 20, 2025
COSTS DECISION
The Honourable Justice J. Krawchenko
[1] In my decision of 19 March 2025, I instructed that if the parties could not agree on costs, they could each make brief written submissions to me, of no greater than 2 pages in length, double spaced, excluding bills of costs and offers to settle.
[2] The parties could not come an agreement on costs and have now submitted their costs submissions.
Position of the Parties
[3] The successful Respondent seeks costs of $807,728.16.
[4] The Appellant submits that there should be no costs.
Costs
[5] Section 131 of the Courts of Justice provides that costs of and incidental to a proceeding are in the discretion of the court.
[6] In exercising this discretion, Rule 57.01 suggests that in addition to the result achieved in the proceeding and any offers to settle, the court may also consider a number of factors. The factors that are significant in the context of this appeal are:
a. The complexity of the proceedings.
b. The amount claimed.
c. The importance of the issues.
d. The amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the proceedings.
[7] The overarching principles to be applied in dealing with the costs of any proceeding are reasonableness, fairness and proportionality.
Analysis
[8] The Respondent was the successful party.
[9] The parties were involved in an appeal process, which by its very nature, is complex. The Responding party did not prepare or file any materials.
[10] While the amount at issue in the appeal was relatively modest, this represented a significant sum to the Respondent, making it a very important proceeding and issue for her.
[11] It is certain that both parties reasonably expected that there would be some potential exposure to costs if they were not successful, although I would add that the Appellant had advised the court that if they were successful, they would not be seeking costs. While this gesture was no doubt appreciated by the Respondent, that does not necessarily mean that if the Appellant was not successful that they would not be ordered to pay costs to the Respondent. In fact, it would be unreasonable and unfair not to award some costs to the Respondent.
[12] In this case, I would start by dismissing any notion that the Respondent would be entitled to costs in the amount claimed by her. It is clear from her submissions, that the Respondent has misunderstood the purpose or limits to costs awards, and in her submissions has advanced a form of a claim for damages instead.
[13] Taking into account the fact that Appellant was not successful on appeal, balanced with the fact that the Respondent did not prepare or file any responding materials or make substantive submissions during the course of the appeal but did appear to respond to the appeal, in recognition of the inconvenience to the Respondent and that she was required to attend at court on the return date, for those reasons, in the exercise of my discretion I find that a modest award of costs is warranted.
Conclusion
[14] For the foregoing reasons, I fix costs of this appeal, payable by the Appellant to the Respondent in the amount of $500.00, payable within 30 days.
Justice J. Krawchenko
Released: April 7, 2025
CITATION.: The Effort Trust Company v. Perron, 2025 ONSC 2182
COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-273
DATE: 2025-04-07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
THE EFFORT TRUST COMPANY
Landlord/Appellant
- and –
SUSAN PERRON
Tenant/Respondent
COSTS DECISION
Justice Krawchenko
Released: April 7, 2025