COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-3995-00
DATE: 20120716
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Timothy Zawislak v. Siemens Canada Ltd.
BEFORE: Baltman J.
COUNSEL: Timothy Zawislak, Plaintiff, self-represented
C. O’Donohue, for the Defendant Siemens Canada Ltd.
C O S T S E N D O R S E M E N T
[1] Mr. Zawislak brought a wrongful dismissal action against Siemens Canada Limited (Siemens), seeking damages in excess of $400,000. Siemens moved for summary judgment on the basis that the action was statute barred. On February 14, 2012 I awarded summary judgment on that basis, dismissing the plaintiff’s action in its entirety. This endorsement deals with the costs being sought by Siemens.
[2] Up to and during the motion Mr. Zawislak was represented by the Paliare Roland firm. After my judgment was delivered Mr. Zawislak filed a Notice of Intention to act in person. I had originally stipulated that his costs submissions were to be provided by March 9, 2012. On March 5, 2012 he requested and was granted a 90 day extension but failed to provide submissions within that time. On June 22nd he was advised that he must file costs submissions by June 29, 2012, failing which the court would proceed to assess costs without his input. On June 27th Mr. Zawislak sent further correspondence explaining why in his view it would not be “prudent” to address costs at this juncture. It does not appear that he copied that correspondence to Siemens. In any case, his stated reasons – namely his financial position, the allegedly unfair treatment by Siemens, and his ongoing attempt to revive his appeal (previously dismissed by the Court of Appeal) – do not in my view merit any further extension. I have therefore proceeded to assess costs without his submissions.
[3] Siemens seeks costs in the amount of $37,462, calculated on a partial indemnity basis ($35,266 for fees plus $2,196 for disbursements). This is far in excess of what is reasonable. The motion took only one half day to argue. There were no discoveries and the productions were not extensive. Nor was it legally or factually complex. While the arguments required reference to several points of law – i.e., limitation periods, promissory estoppels, and the test for summary judgment – the parties agreed on the legal principles. The case turned essentially on its facts, and in that regard primarily on 2-3 pieces of correspondence. Indeed, although Ms. O’Donohue now suggests the case involved “significant complexity”, when previously arguing the merits before me she emphasized how simple and straightforward the case was.
[4] After considering these factors along with the provisions of Rule 57.01, I have determined that Siemens shall recover $22,000 in fees plus $2,196 for disbursements, for a total of $24,196.
Baltman J.
DATE: July 16, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-3995-00
DATE: 20120716
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Timothy Zawislak v. Siemens Canada Ltd.
BEFORE: Baltman J.
COUNSEL: Timothy Zawislak, Plaintiff, self-represented
C. O’Donohue, for the Defendant Siemens Canada Ltd.
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Baltman J.
DATE: July 16, 2012