ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-0438
DATE: 2013-06-14
B E T W E E N:
Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson, Jeanette Johnson, Norall Group Inc. and Norall Group Contracting Inc.
Christopher D.J. Hacio, for the Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs
- and -
Gina Gustafson, Juanita Curle, Holly LeBrun,
Carl Gustafson, and D.J. Gustafson Engineering Ltd. c.o.b. as Aegus Contracting
Morris Holervich, for the Defendants
Defendants
HEARD: June 3, 2013,
in Thunder Bay, Ontario
McCartney J.
Costs Decision on Motion by the Defendants Juanita Curle and Gina Gustafson to Strike the Statement of Claim
[1] On April 26, 2013, I released a decision dismissing the above noted motion. On June 4, 2013, I conducted a costs hearing at which time the plaintiffs claimed their costs on the motion on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $14,300.00 or on a partial indemnity basis of $10,000.00.
[2] On the question of liability for costs, there is little doubt that the plaintiffs are entitled to their costs. They won the motion – they made an offer to settle prior to the return date of the motion which was rejected by the defendants. This was the case even though much of the offer appeared to answer the defendants concerns with the Statement of Claim. However I do not agree with the plaintiffs that they should be entitled to substantial indemnity costs. This is a complex case involving many causes of action and it was not unreasonable to bring such a motion under these circumstances.
[3] On the other hand I do not agree with the defendants that I should invoke Rule 57.03(1) in such a way as to order that if costs are to be paid they should be costs to the plaintiffs in the cause – or costs to the plaintiffs in any event of the cause – as opposed to the usual order making costs payable forthwith. I agree with the plaintiffs’ submission that unlike a motion where the merits of the case are being argued, this is strictly a pleadings motion. Therefore the proper place for a decision on costs to be decided is on the motion itself – not at the end of the Trial.
[4] On the question of quantum. I agree with the defendants that the plaintiffs Bill of Costs seems rather excessive in that the plaintiffs, in drafting the Statement of Claim which was under attack, would have already researched the law and the many causes of actions alleged, and should not have had to spend the amount of time in defending their own Statement of Claim which might be expected in other types of motions. However, the defendants motion material was very extensive and clearly required a considerable amount of attention in preparing a response.
[5] It is my recollection that the matter took some 4 hours of court time to hear.
[6] All considered, I am prepared to award costs herein on a partial indemnity basis inclusive of HST of $5,000.00 payable to the plaintiffs by the defendants Gina Gustafson and Juanita Curle.
The Hon. Mr. Justice J. F. McCartney
Released: June 14, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-0438
DATE: 2013-06-14
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Allan Curle, Bruce Johnson, Jeanette Johnson, Norall Group Inc. and Norall Group Contracting Inc.
Plaintiff
- and –
Gina Gustafson, Juanita Curle, Holly LeBrun,
Carl Gustafson, and D.J. Gustafson Engineering Ltd. c.o.b. as Aegus Contracting
Defendants
COSTS DECISION ON MOTION BY THE DEFENDANTS JUANITA CURLE
AND GINA GUSTAFSON TO
STRIKE THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM
McCartney J.
Released: June 14, 2013
/mrm