SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Dolvin Mechanical Contractors Ltd. v. Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company, Samson Management and Solutions Ltd., Toronto Transit Commission and Martin Bamford

2013 ONSC 6304

COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-466422

BEFORE: MASTER R.A. MUIR

COUNSEL:
R. Harason for the plaintiff

S. Ambrozy for the defendants Toronto Transit Commission and Martin Bamford

S. Ingram for the defendant Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company

HEARD: July 31, 2013

ENDORSEMENT - COSTS

[1] On July 31, 2013 I heard a motion brought by the plaintiff for the following relief:

(a) an order implementing a discovery plan;

(b) an order that the defendants Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”) and Martin Bamford (“Bamford”) serve a further and better affidavit of documents; and,

(c) an order that the defendants TTC and Bamford produce certain documents without redactions for privilege.

[2] At the conclusion of the argument of the motion I advised the parties that I would be reserving my decision. On August 23, 2013, I released my endorsement. As part of my endorsement I requested that the parties attempt to resolve the issue of costs or provide written submissions if they were unable to do so.

[3] The plaintiff and the defendants TTC and Bamford have resolved the issue of costs. There will be no order with respect to the costs of this motion as between those parties.

[4] However, the plaintiff and the defendant Trisura Guarantee Insurance Company (“Trisura”) have been unable to resolve the costs issue and have provided the court with written submissions. The plaintiff argues that it has been substantially successful and seeks partial indemnity costs of $6,500.00. Trisura argues that it was successful and seeks costs in the amount of $1,322.10.

[5] I have reviewed and considered the submissions of the parties. I am unable to conclude that one party has been measurably more successful than the other. In my view, Trisura was more successful than the plaintiff with respect to the main issues argued on July 31, 2013. Only very limited additional production was ordered from Trisura and the court generally rejected the very broad documentary production being sought by the plaintiff. However, it is also my view that this motion was necessary. Certain issues relating to the discovery of a representative of Trisura and the service of Trisura’s affidavit of documents were not resolved until after the plaintiff was forced to bring its motion.

[6] For these reasons, it is my view that it is fair and reasonable that there be no order with respect to the costs of this motion as between the plaintiff and Trisura.

Master R.A. Muir

DATE: October 8, 2013