Court File and Parties

BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-0642

DATE: 20130905

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: ROD CATFORD, Plaintiff

AND:

PETER CATFORD, ELLEN CATFORD, THE COUNTY OF SIMCOE, JAMIE MORAN, Defendants

AND

RE: RODERICK ROLAND CATFORD, Plaintiff

AND:

JANE CHARLOTTE VOYVODIC CATFORD, Defendant

BEFORE: THE HON. MADAM JUSTICE S.E. HEALEY

COUNSEL:
H. Turner, Counsel, for the Plaintiff Roderick Roland Catford

K. Hamilton/D.L. Arbesman, Counsel, for the Respondents Peter Catford, Ellen Catford and Jane Charlotte Voyvodic Catford

HEARD: by written submissions

Endorsement on Costs

[1] This endorsement on costs follows the Court’s rulings on the defendants’ motion originally returnable April 18, 2013 and the plaintiff’s motion returnable July 9, 2013.

[2] Having reviewed the written submissions of counsel, this Court finds that success was divided on these motions and each party shall pay his or her own costs. I cannot clearly delineate who of the litigants is more responsible for the wasted costs of these motions. The history of the parties’ conduct leading to these motions is lengthy and mired in a total lack of co-operation, and none of the litigants have conducted themselves in a way that would warrant the detailed, time-consuming task faced by this court to review pages of documentation filed on the motions and in the written cost submissions to attempt to discern fact from fiction.

[3] I have, however, read carefully the submissions made by both counsel regarding remarks made by the defendants’ counsel that impugn the integrity and professionalism of Ms. Turner. Because I have ruled that each party shall bear his or her own costs, these submissions are ultimately moot in terms of the costs of these motions. However, it is an unfortunate fact that the comments made by the defendants’ counsel about Ms. Turner during submissions, and the content of documents filed by counsel that continue in the same vein, have been the subject of negative comment by the Court and will continued to be monitored by me as the case management judge. Such conduct as has been exhibited could have attracted solicitor and client costs for the reasons outlined in Baksh v. Sun Media (Toronto) Corp. (2003), 2003 64288 (ON SC), 63 O.R. 51 (Ont. Master) and Sun Trust Co. v. Bond City Financing (1997) 1997 16221 (ON SC), 36 O.R. (3d) 758 (Div. Ct.), and may very well in the future if warranted at that time.

HEALEY J.

Date: September 5, 2013