BETWEEN:

PARVIZ VICTORY, on his own behalf and as Trustee for AMIR HOOSHANG VICTORY, IRADJ VICTORY, MEHRDAD VICTORY and KAMBIZ VICTORY

Plaintiffs

– and –

FARHANG SATTAR

Defendant

Peter Wardle and Erin Pleet, for the Plaintiffs

Harvey S. Dorsey, for the Defendant

HEARD: In Writing

PERELL, J.

REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS

1The Defendant Farhang Sattar brought a motion to have the Plaintiff Parviz Victory’s action stayed on the grounds that Ontario does not have jurisdiction simpliciter or, in the alternative, Mr. Sattar submitted that Ontario is forum non conveniens. For reasons reported at Victory v. Sattar, 2014 ONSC 641, I dismissed the motion.

2Mr. Victory seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis of $38,331.86, all inclusive. This claim includes an appearance fee for the argument of the motion for both senior and junior counsel; $2,847.60 for senior counsel (Peter Wardle) and $1,305.15 for junior counsel (Erin Pleet).

3The court appreciates the participation of junior counsel on the argument of the motion because it benefits the administration of justice when senior lawyers mentor and encourage the development of junior lawyers, and the involvement of a junior lawyer may be beneficial for the client, but the case at bar is not one in which it would be appropriate to indemnify Mr. Victory for the cost of two counsel on the motion.

4Deducting Ms. Pleet’s counsel fee and HST leaves a claim for costs of approximately $37,000, all inclusive. Mr. Sattar, however, submits that this claim is excessive and unreasonable and submits that the appropriate award should be $14,873.18, all inclusive.

5Largely based on the length of the affidavits, factums, and the volume of documents and the routine legal principles applied, Mr. Sattar submits that the facts and the law were not complex and the amount of preparation time for the motion was excessive.

6I do not regard the length or thickness of the evidentiary and rhetorical record as necessarily revealing much, because a great volume of material may actually indicate that the lawyers spent too little time preparing the matter.

7Conciseness and a focused submission require work, and as Mark Twain, amongst others noted, “I have written at length because I did not have the time to make my message shorter.” (Also attributed to Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, Blaise Pascall, and Pliny the Younger.) Without counting paragraphs, I would regard Mr. Sattar’s motion to be of average complexity.

8Whatever its complexity, Mr. Sattar’s motion was a significant and very important motion for the parties. The motion was well and passionately argued by counsel for both parties. Winning the jurisdiction motion would have secured a substantive tactical victory for Mr. Sattar, because it was quite likely that Mr. Victory and his family would not prosecute his claim against Mr. Sattar in the Iranian courts.

9Although Mr. Victory’s counsel may not have submitted costs submissions and corroborative information in accordance with the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure, I am satisfied that his lawyers did work of a value in excess of $37,000.

10The question then becomes, having regard to the various factors that guide a court’s discretion about costs, would an award of $37,000, all inclusive, be fair and reasonable and within the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party?

11In my opinion, the answer to that question is that $37,000 is somewhat high and that the appropriate award should be $30,000, all inclusive.

12Order accordingly.

Perell, J.

Released: March 24, 2014

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-472644

DATE: 20140324

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

PARVIZ VICTORY, on his own behalf and as Trustee for AMIR HOOSHANG VICTORY, IRADJ VICTORY, MEHRDAD VICTORY and KAMBIZ VICTORY

Plaintiffs

‑ and ‑

FARHANG SATTAR

Defendant