ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: CV-08-358687
DATE: 20131219

RE: Michael Przysuski

Applicant

v.

City Optical Holdings Inc., Yorkville Optical Labs Ltd., City Optical Inc., Empire Optical Labs Ltd., Steeles Eyewear Inc., Valleyview Eyewear Inc., Boots Vision Inc., Golden Mile Vision Inc., Optical Authority Inc., Robert Parr and Betty Holloway Parr

Respondents

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Stephen Firestone

COUNSEL:
Charles Wagman, for the Applicant
Alex Flesias & Diana Bloom, for the Corporate Respondents and Robert Parr
Chris Reain, for the Respondent, Betty Holloway Parr

HEARD: Written Submissions

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

FIRESTONE J.:

[1] On September 24, 2013 by way of written reasons, I ordered that this application be converted into an action with terms.

[2] In my reasons, I ordered that written cost submissions with a costs outline were to be filed within 15 days.

[3] Costs are within the discretion of the Court: Courts of Justice Act, s. 131(1). The court has broad discretion in determining the issue of costs. Rule 57.01 (1) sets out the factors the Court may consider when determining the issue of costs.

[4] The overall objective of fixing costs to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay, in the particular circumstances, rather than an amount fixed by actual costs incurred by the successful litigant. Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for Ontario, [2004] Ont.C.A..

[5] In my written reasons, I noted that the respondents had previously failed to comply with various court orders which undoubtedly delayed the matter from being heard on its merits.

[6] In Schreiber v. Mulroney, [2007] O.J. No.319 (Sup Ct.) at para. 2, it was held that a successful party is entitled to costs in the absence of a very good reason(s) not to order them. In this case, there is good reason to depart from this general rule. See Domjan Investments Inc. v. D.J. Wagner Investments Inc. (2005), 2005 49202 (ON SC), 79 O.R. (3d) 150.

[7] After considering the various orders made by Masters of this Court and the history of the proceedings; the interests of justice dictate that costs in this matter be in the cause as between the corporate respondents Robert Parr and the plaintiff. I fix such costs in the sum of $5,900.00 all-inclusive.

[8] The respondent, Betty Holloway Parr, was not a moving party. She is not entitled to any costs.

FIRESTONE, J.

DATE: December 19, 2013