Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-12-457541
Date: 2013-11-20
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Anita Rovazzi, Applicant

And: Ian Gelespy, Respondent

Before: Aston J.

Counsel:
Patrick G. Duffy and Alexandra M. Urbanski, for the Applicant
Ian Gelespy, self-represented Respondent

Heard: On written submissions this date

Endorsement Re Costs

[1] The successful applicant is entitled to costs, but in the circumstances, the quantum claimed on a party and party basis is exorbitant. In determining what is reasonable as a partial indemnity for the costs incurred by the applicant I have taken into account that:

(1) There was no evidence the respondent was on notice of any adverse possession claim when he removed the old stone wall and replaced it with the new concrete curb in 2010;

(2) Much of the time claimed in the Bill of Costs predates any assertion of a claim for adverse possession and even predates the applicant having any property ownership right herself;

(3) The relief sought necessitated a court application in any event, whether opposed or not. For the most part, the costs of investigating title and developing the necessary evidence, including the survey expenses, would have been incurred anyway as part of the applicant’s cost of obtaining title. So too many of the other disbursements.

(4) The self-represented respondent did not consent to the application, but did not oppose it except to ask the court to examine the sufficiency of the applicant’s evidence. He filed no material and did not seek to cross-examine on the applicant’s material. The respondent did nothing to add to the applicant’s costs except to refuse his consent to the relief sought. The respondent acted reasonably throughout.

(5) I do not accept that it was efficient for ten different individuals in the applicant’s solicitor’s office to be involved in this file. The hours claimed are ridiculously high in relation to what was at stake. It is hard to escape the impression that three lawyers, four students-at-law and three clerks were each re-inventing the wheel and duplicating their work product. It is difficult to understand the legitimacy of asking the respondent to pay for the mute attendance of junior counsel at the hearing. A fair characterization of the applicant’s Bill of Costs is that it reflects a perceived opportunity to charge what the traffic will bear.

[2] The respondent is to pay costs of the application fixed at $10,000, all inclusive.

Aston J.

Date: November 20, 2013