SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: 587/13
DATE: 2014-04-08
RE: Christopher Luxon, Applicant
AND:
Roy’s Northland Camp Limited, Robert Morrissey, Michelle Fortier, Gale Darling and Linda Darling-Pay, Respondents
BEFORE: Lemon, J.
COUNSEL:
W. Gerald Punnett, for the Applicant
Bassam Lazar, for the Respondents
HEARD: February 28, 2014
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
THE ISSUE
[1] On February 28, 2014, I rendered my decision in this application. The parties now seek their costs.
[2] There were two issues in this matter. The applicant was successful on one issue; the respondent on the other. The respondent seeks costs in the amount of $7,924.78 on what appears to be a full indemnity basis. The applicant seeks costs of $14,873 on a partial indemnity basis, or $21,650.99 on a substantial indemnity basis.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
[3] Costs rules are designed to foster three fundamental purposes:
(a) to partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation;
(b) to encourage settlement; and
(c) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants.
(See: Phuong v. Chan 1999 2052 (O.N.C.A.) 1999 46 O.R. (3d) 330.)
[4] I am also required to take into consideration what an unsuccessful party would reasonably expect to pay for such a proceeding.
[5] Costs awards, at the end of the day, should reflect “what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties”: see Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario 2004 14579 (ON C.A.), (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291, at para. 24.
ANALYSIS
[6] I am not advised of any offers to settle.
[7] The respondents were found to have proceeded with the sale of corporate assets without proper notice to the applicant. Even though the issue was academic because the sale had fallen through, the respondents wished to proceed with the application. They lost on that issue. That conduct should not engender a costs award for them.
[8] The respondent sought the return of a number of chattels from the property. Although the applicant was successful on the academic issue of notice to him, he was unsuccessful on the matter that might have put value in his hands. That was obviously the more important issue for his purposes. On that, he was unsuccessful.
[9] In the circumstances, I decline to order costs for either party.
Lemon, J.
Date: April 8, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: 587/13
DATE: 2014-04-08
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Christopher Luxon v. Roy’s Northland Camp Limited, Robert Morrissey, Michelle Fortier, Gale Darling and Linda Darling-Pay
BEFORE: Lemon, J
COUNSEL: W. Gerald Punnett, for the Applicant
Bassam Lazar, for the Respondents
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Lemon, J
DATE: April 8, 2014