Graziotto v. Abel – CV-09-391169 Rowson v. Abel – CV-09-391170 2013 ONSC 314

Counsel:
Scott D. Chambers and Andrew F. Weafer for the plaintiffs
Alan A. Farrer for the defendants William Charles Scott and Upper Grand District School Board
James Pietrangelo for the defendant Bruce Abel

COSTS ENDORSEMENT (MOTIONS HEARD DECEMBER 11, 2012)

Master R.A. Muir -

[1]. This costs endorsement is in respect of motions brought by the plaintiffs in which they sought an order that these two actions be tried together. Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought an order that the actions be tried one immediately following the other. The plaintiffs also requested orders extending the date by which both actions must be set down for trial. Finally, the plaintiff Lisa Graziotto (“Graziotto”) sought an order granting her leave to amend her statement of claim.

[2]. The defendants did not oppose the orders sought with respect to the extension of time and the amendments to the Graziotto statement of claim. The defendant Bruce Abel did not oppose the relief sought with respect to trial together. The defendants William Charles Scott (“Scott”) and Upper Grand District School Board (the “Board”) opposed an order that these actions be tried together.

[3]. In my endorsement dated December 12, 2012, I allowed the plaintiffs’ motions in part. I granted the unopposed relief and I also ordered that these two actions be placed on the trial list one following the other and be tried together, or one following the other, as directed by the trial judge. In addition, I ordered that the pre-trials for both actions take place at the same time. In my endorsement I also requested that the parties provide the court with written costs submissions. I have now reviewed and considered those costs submissions.

[4]. In my view, neither side was completely successful on these motions. It appears from the evidence placed before the court that at all times the plaintiffs insisted, as their primary position, on an order that these two actions be tried together and not simply tried one after the other. Their position is clearly set out in their lawyer’s letter of October 1, 2012 and in their notices of motion. They only stepped back from that position during the course of the argument of these motions. Ultimately, I did not order that the two actions be tried together, only that they be placed on the trial list together and thereafter tried together or separately in the discretion of the trial judge.

[5]. Prior to the argument of these motions, Scott and the Board took the position that these motions were premature and ought to be dismissed. As an alternative position, they suggested that the actions simply be placed on the trial list one following the other and that the balance of the relief requested be adjourned to the trial judge. It was only during the course of argument, that counsel for Scott and the Board indicated that his clients would be content with the order I ultimately made.

[6]. In view of these circumstances, and given the divided success, I have come to the conclusion that it is fair and reasonable that there be no order with respect to the costs of these motions.

January 15, 2013

Master R. A. Muir