Court File and Parties

CITATION: Huigen v. Baurenhof Equipment Ltd., 2025 ONSC 5066

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-25-430-ML

DATE: 20251009

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Hendrik Huigen, and Huigen Acres Inc., Moving Parties

AND:

Baurenhof Equipment Ltd., Eric Vander Berg, and Henry Vos, Responding Parties

BEFORE: Backhouse, Shore, and Tranquilli JJ.

COUNSEL: Matthew Jarrett, for the Moving Parties Nikolay Y, Chsherbinin, for the Responding Parties Henry Vos

HEARD: In-writing

Amended Costs Addendum

[1] The Order that was issued on September 19, 2025 ordered no costs on the mistaken basis that there were no cost outlines although the parties had advised that costs outlines would not be filed because there were offers to settle. Counsel have already been advised that the Panel did not consider itself functus in these circumstances.

[2] The parties have now filed their costs outlines, offers to settle and costs submissions which have been considered by the Panel

[3] The responding party as the successful party is entitled to costs of the motion. The motion for leave involved a $6610 costs order imposed because the moving party did not oppose but failed to consent and sought costs to the reopening of pleadings.

[4] The responding party's offer to settle costs at $5000 would have resulted in a better outcome to the moving party than the dismissal of the leave motion. However, the responding party’s claim for costs of $17,747 on a substantial indemnity basis is disproportionate. Given the small amount in issue and because this matter was due to the responding party’s failure to file in time, costs to the responding party in the amount of $2500 are fair and reasonable and we so order.

Backhouse J.

Shore J.

Tranquilli J.

Released: October 15, 2025