Kazakevicius v. Kazakevicius
CITATION: 2014 ONSC 1465
COURT FILE NO.: 32/13
DATE: 2014/03/06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Janet Kazakevicius
Paul S. Pellman, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
John Murray Richard Kazakevicius, and Christine Elizabeth Kazakevicius
J. Fraser Bushell, for the Respondents
Respondents
HEARD: December 6th 2013
COSTS RULING
PARAYESKI J.
[1] When I released my decision on the respondents’ motion for summary judgment on December 6th 2013, I invited the parties to agree upon costs, failing which I would rule on that issue based upon written submissions. No agreement was reached. I have received and carefully reviewed the written submissions provided.
[2] My decision disposed of the entirety of the applicant’s application. Accordingly, in my view, it is appropriate that costs encompassing the whole application be dealt with in this ruling, rather than limiting my consideration to the costs of the motion itself. Otherwise, and in the absence of any previous orders on costs, the costs not strictly related to the motion would have no forum in which they could be addressed. That would be manifestly unfair to the respondents.
[3] The respondents served an offer to settle on October 25th 2013. The offer essentially invited the applicant to withdraw her application for access to the respondents’ children (who are also the applicant’s grandchildren) and to agree to not disparage each other on a mutual basis, with the parties bearing their own costs. The offer was not accepted. My ruling dismissed the application in its entirety. The offer ought to have been accepted.
[4] I see no reason to deviate from the norm which suggests that in these circumstances the respondents are entitled to their costs on the partial indemnity scale up until the time of the offer and on the substantial indemnity scale thereafter.
[5] The respondents have submitted a bill of costs, which I believe sets out the fees and disbursements incurred. Both the pre-offer and post-offer fees are shown as calculated at $300 per hour, exclusive of taxes. In the respondents’ submissions, they suggest reducing the pre-offer fees by approximately 50 percent to arrive at partial indemnity numbers. The bill of costs shows disbursements of $182.46 plus taxes. In the submissions, 50 percent of the disbursements amount just mentioned is sought throughout. There is no breakdown between pre-offer and post-offer disbursements.
[6] While I am of the view that the respondents’ position as set out in their submissions is fair and appropriate, I am somewhat concerned that there is no specific allocation of what I assume is docketed time to the various tasks described in the bill of costs. All pre-offer attendances are caught in an overall figure, as are those post-offer. It is difficult, therefore, to determine whether the time spent on any described function is reasonable on an individual basis. That said, I have no difficulty with the time totals shown. The respondents ask for $7,603.82, inclusive of HST for costs. Of that, $103.09 (again inclusive of HST) is for disbursements. Taking all of the above into consideration, as well as the usual factors under the Rules which are to be reviewed in assessing costs, I fix the respondents’ costs payable by the applicant at $7,500.00 all inclusive. I agree that the application was important to the applicant. It was no doubt also important to the respondents, who were ultimately successful.
[7] The applicant went to great lengths in the hearing before me to point out that she is a successful business woman. It is unlikely, therefore, that she will be surprised by the scale of this costs award.
PARAYESKI J.
DATE: March 6, 2014
FILE NO.: 32/13
DATE: 2014/03/06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Janet Kazakevicius
Applicant
- and –
John Murray Richard Kazakevicius, and Christine Elizabeth Kazakevicius
Respondents
COSTS RULING
PARAYESKI J.
MDP:vt
Released: March 6, 2014