SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

COMMERCIAL LIST

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-9318-00CL
DATE: 20131112

RE: RE: Bertina Alfano, Trustee of the Carmen Alfano Family Trust, Bertina Alfano, Italo Alfano, trustee of the Italo Alfano Family Trust, Italo Alfano, Ulti Alfano Trustee of the Ulti Alfano Family Trust and Ulti Alfano ,

Plaintiffs

AND:

Terry Piersanti also known as Terry Scatcherd, Christian Piersanti, Piersanti and Co. Barristers and Solicitors, Piersanti and Co. Professional Corporation, 1269906 Ontario Limited, 1281111 Ontario Limited, 1281038 Ontario Limited, 1314112 Ontario Limited, 1281633 Ontario Limited, 1281632 Ontario Limited,

1466556 Ontario Limited, 3957331 Canada Inc., 3964400 Canada Inc., 3968626 Canada Inc., 4002598 Canada Inc., 4011902 Canada Inc., 6051685 Canada Inc., 6060439 Canada Inc., 6260365 Canada Inc., 6292470 Canada Inc., 6306560 Canada Inc., 6324223 Canada Inc., 6792715 Canada Inc., Yonge Centre Properties Inc., 6335144 Canada Inc., TMJ Investments, Tara Piersanti also known as Tara Piersanti-Blake, Justin Piersanti and Morgan Piersanti,

Defendants

BEFORE: Newbould J.

COUNSEL:
V. Ross Morrison and R. Samantha Chapman, for the defendants, moving parties

Kevin D. Sherkin and James F. Diamond, for the plaintiffs, responding parties

Kyla E. M. Mahar, for the Receiver

ENDORSEMENT

[1] On October 23, 2013 I dismissed a motion by the defendants to dissolve an earlier mareva injunction and ordered costs to the plaintiffs. I have now received cost submissions.

[2] The plaintiffs seek costs of $22,170.43 inclusive of disbursements and HST. The defendants say the bill should be reduced to no more than $15,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST. They complain that too much time was spent on various tasks. Unfortunately, the defendants do not provide the hours spent on their behalf by their counsel, which makes their argument what Winkler J. (as he then was) said in Risorto v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (2003), 2003 43566 (ON SC), 64 O.R. (3rd) 135 was an “attack in the air”.

[3] The complaint is mainly that too much time was spent on the motion on previous occasions when the motion was adjourned for various reasons. However, the preparation had to be done and presumably had the motion proceeded on one of those days the time claimed for that day would have been higher. I see no problem with Mr. Diamond being in attendance, in spite of the fact that an affidavit of his was in the record (which from my memory, had little if anything to do with substance) as he had done much work on the matter and was helpful to the court in answering questions.

[4] In my view, taking into account the factors in rule 57.01, including what the defendants could reasonably expect to pay in a losing cause, an appropriate cost award inclusive of disbursements and HST is $22,000. The moving defendants are ordered to pay this amount within 30 days, failing which the receiver shall pay the award and charge it to the receiver accounts.

Newbould J.

Date: November 12, 2013