SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 09-CV-45430

RE: CARLETON CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 396, Plaintiff/Responding Party v. 1457563 ONTARIO CORPORATION, 1457563 ONTARIO CORPORATION IN TRUST, JANET SUE BURDET, NELSON STREET LAW OFFICES, CLAUDE-ALAIN BURDET, CLAUDE-ALAIN BURDET IN TRUST, L’ACADEMIE CHRISTIANE SAUVE INC. AND INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY DEPOT, Defendants/Moving Parties

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger

COUNSEL: Counsel, for the defendants moving party Claude-Alain Burdet

Counsel, for the plaintiff responding party Fabrice Gouriou

HEARD: By written submissions

RULING ON COSTS

[1] I have received and have had the opportunity to review the written submissions with respect to the issue of costs in this matter.

[2] In this case, the responding parties were entirely successful on the motions brought before this Court.

[3] The Court of Appeal in the decision of Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for Ontario (2004), 2004 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 at page 299 indicates as follows:

It is important to bear in mind that rule 57.01(3), which established the costs grid, provides:

57.01(3) When the court awards costs, it shall fix them in accordance with subrule (1) and the Tarifs.

Subrule (1) lists a broad range of factors that the court may consider in exercising its discretion to award costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. The express language of rule 57.01(3) makes it clear that the fixing of costs is not simply a mechanical exercise. In particular, the rule makes clear that the fixing of costs does not begin and end with a calculation of hours times rates. The introduction of a costs grid was not meant to produce that result, but rather to signal that this is one factor in the assessment process, together with the other factors in rule 57.01. Overall, as this court has said, the objective is to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the particular proceeding, rather than an amount fixed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant.

[4] In determining the appropriate amount of costs I have also considered the factors specifically set out in rule 57.01 (1) a through i.

[5] In this case I fix costs in the all-inclusive sum of $2500.00 payable by the moving party defendants forthwith.

Justice Robert Maranger

Date: August 30, 2013

Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 396 v. 1457563 Ontario Corporation, 2013 ONSC 4597

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: CALETON CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 396,

Plaintiff/Responding Party

AND

1457563 ONTARIO CORPORATION, 1457563 ONTARIO CORPORATION IN TRUST, JANET SUE BURDET, NELSON STREET LAW OFFICES, CLAUDE-ALAIN BURDET, CLAUDE-ALAIN BURDET IN TRUST, L’ACADEMIE CHRISTIANE SAUVE INC. AND INTERNATIONAL BEAUTY DEPOT

Defendants/Moving Party

BEFORE: Justice Robert L. Maranger

COUNSEL: Counsel, for the defendants moving party Claude-Alain Burdet

Counsel, for the plaintiff responding party Fabrice Gouriou

RULING ON COSTS

Justice Robert L. Maranger

Released: August 30, 2013