ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 09-44879
DATE: 2013/07/12
BETWEEN:
RICHARD GLOVER
Plaintiff
– and –
MICHEL PERRON
Defendant
Eric R. Williams, for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim
Stephen J. Maddex, for the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim
AND BETWEEN
MICHEL PERRON
Plaintiff by Counterclaim
– and –
RICHARD GLOVER
Defendant by Counterclaim
HEARD: By written submissions
decision on costs
Kane J.
[1] This Court apologizes to the parties and their counsel for the delay in rendering this cost decision.
[2] Neither party alleges that an offer was served in relation to this motion for summary judgement or the cross-motion.
CONSIDERATION UNDER RULE 57
[3] Glover was successful in defending the motion for summary judgment and in his cross-motion. Costs should normally follow that result.
[4] Perron submits there should be no cost award. Every party moving for summary judgment knows there are likely cost consequences if unsuccessful.
[5] The fact that Perron, and perhaps Glover, treated the corporation and partnership synonymously does not alter the law. The assets of the corporation are owned by it; not by the partnership, its partners, the shareholders, nor by the parties personally. Perron cannot obtain dissolution of a corporation by an order to wind up a partnership under the Partnership Act. There was no evidence as to whether the business was carried on by the corporation and whether the assets sought to be divided were corporate or partnership assets.
[6] On the basis of this analysis in the decision, Perron’s submission that there should be no cost award is rejected.
- AMOUNT CLAIMED AND THE AMOUNT RECOVERED
There is a substantial amount of money in issue in this action.
- APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY
Glover successfully defended the summary judgment motion and was successful on his cross-motion.
- COMPLEXITY OF THE PROCEEDING
The complexity level was medium.
- IMPORTANCE OF THE ISSUE
Summary judgment motions are important to each party and necessitate a thorough response.
- CONDUCT OF ANY PARTY THAT TENDED TO SHORTEN OR TO LENGTHEN THE PROCEEDING UNNECESSARILY
Not applicable.
- WHETHER ANY STEP WAS IMPROPER, VEXATIOUS OR UNNECESSARY OR TAKEN THROUGH NEGLIGENCE, MISTAKE OR EXCESSIVE CAUTION
Not applicable.
- A PARTY’S DENIAL OF OR REFUSAL TO ADMIT ANYTHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED
Not applicable.
- EXPERIENCE OF THE LAWYER OF PARTY ENTITLED TO THE COSTS INCLUDING RATES CHARGED AND HOURS SPENT
The hourly rates, given the year of call, and the hours expended are appropriate and proportional.
- AMOUNT OF COSTS THAT AN UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY COULD REASONABLY EXPECT TO PAY IN RELATION TO THIS PROCEEDING
Summary judgment motions, given the potential consequence, are recognized as costly.
[7] Based on above considerations, Perron is ordered to pay Glover costs in the amount of $10,500.00, including disbursements and tax, within 30 days.
Kane J.
Released: July 12, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: 09-44879
DATE: 2013/07/12
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
RICHARD GLOVER
Plaintiff
– and –
MICHEL PERRON
Defendant
AND BETWEEN
MICHEL PERRON
Plaintiff by Counterclaim
– and –
RICHARD GLOVER
Defendant by Counterclaim
decision on costs
Kane J.
Released: July 12, 2013