SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-3854-00
DATE: 20140619
RE: Angelo Sampogna and Antoniette Louie, as Estate Trustees for the Estate of Maria Cristina Sampogna (also known as Cristina Sampogna and Christina Sampogna)
- and -
Nicollina Squillace, Maria Ciampini and Francine Catherine Sampogna, as Estate Trustees for the Estate of Maria Cristina Sampogna (also known as Cristina Sampogna and Christina Sampogna) and personally; and Giuseppe Giovanni Miceli
BEFORE: D.L. Edwards J.
COUNSEL:
Edward L. Burlew, for the Applicants, Angelo Sampogna and Antoniette Louie
John Lo Faso, for Respondents, Nicollina Squillace and Maria Ciampini
Krystyne Rusek, for Respondent, Francine Catherine Sampogna
Harry Blaier, for the Respondent, Giuseppe Giovanni Miceli
COST ENDORSEMENT
[1] The applicants, Angelo Sampogna and Antoniette Louie, as Estate Trustees for the Estate of Maria Cristina Sampogna commenced an application against the respondents, Nicollina Squillace, Maria Ciampini and Francine Catherine Sampogna, as Estate Trustees for the Estate of Maria Cristina Sampogna, and Giuseppe Giovanni Miceli.
[2] All of the parties to this application, except for Giuseppe Miceli, are the children of Maria Cristina Sampogna. Mr. Miceli was the common-law spouse of Maria Cristina Sampogna until her death on December 5, 2011.
[3] Mr. Miceli owned the matrimonial home at 71 Fiddleneck Crescent, Brampton as tenants in common with Maria Cristina Sampogna.
[4] Mr. Miceli brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and, on December 17, 2013, I granted the motion on specific terms. I also awarded costs of the motion to Mr. Miceli to be paid by the applicants in the amount of $2,500.
[5] The applicants’ counsel now acknowledges that they seek no further relief against Mr. Miceli through this application. On consent, I dismissed the application as against Mr. Miceli. I reserved the issue of costs.
[6] Mr. Miceli's counsel seeks cost on a substantial indemnity basis against the applicants in the total amount of $34,888.82. These costs do not include any time spent for the preparation for any attendance at the motion of December 17, 2013.
[7] He submits that Mr. Miceli has been drawn unnecessarily into an estate dispute. He also asserts that the applicants’ conduct has been problematic; that they have been uncooperative and difficult throughout the application. Because of the actions of the applicants, he seeks substantial indemnity.
[8] He asserts that his hourly rate is reasonable and that the time spent is appropriate for the application.
[9] Mr. Burlew, on behalf of the applicants, submits that my order of December 17, 2013 should be all the costs to which Mr. Miceli is entitled.
[10] He further submits that the application was necessary; that Mr. Miceli was not cooperative with respect to selling the property; and there were concerns about the repair status of the home. Further, he advised Mr. Blaier on June 10, 2014 that no further relief would be sought against Mr. Miceli.
[11] I am satisfied that Mr. Miceli was unnecessarily drawn into an estate dispute. As against Mr. Miceli, the applicants’ main concern was to have the matrimonial home sold. Mr. Miceli accomplished this efficiently through his motion. There was no need for his involvement in this application and no need for him to be drawn into in the Estate Trustees’ dispute. Mr. Blaier’s attendance before me on June 17, 2014 was required to settle the issue of costs, as well as to ensure that the matter was dismissed against his client.
[12] In the circumstances, I am satisfied that Mr. Miceli is entitled to a cost award against the applicants.
[13] It is clear that the cost order on the motion was solely for the motion and not with respect to the entire application. In light of the significant amount of time that Mr. Blair was required to devote to this matter, that, in large part, was necessitated by the applicants’ conduct, it would be unreasonable and unfair to expect such a low cost award would be for the entire application.
[14] I am satisfied that the hourly rate is appropriate for Mr. Blaier’s experience and that the time spent was appropriate particularly in light of the materials served on Mr. Miceli by the applicants.
[15] However, based upon the affidavit material before me, I am not prepared to conclude that the applicants’ conduct was such that they merit a cost award on a substantial indemnity basis. Accordingly, I order that the applicants, Angelo Sampogna and Antoniette Louie, pay costs to Mr. Miceli in the amount of $20,000 fixed, all-inclusive, including HST.
D.L. Edwards J.
DATE: June 19, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-3854-00
DATE: 20140619
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Angelo Sampogna and Antoniette Louie, as Estate Trustees for the Estate of Maria Cristina Sampogna (also known as Cristina Sampogna and Christina Sampogna)
- and -
Nicollina Squillace, Maria Ciampini and Francine Catherine Sampogna, as Estate Trustees for the Estate of Maria Cristina Sampogna (also known as Cristina Sampogna and Christina Sampogna) and personally; and Giuseppe Giovanni Miceli
BEFORE: D.L. Edwards J.
COUNSEL: Edward L. Burlew, for the Applicants, Angelo Sampogna and Antoniette Louie
John Lo Faso, for Respondents, Nicollina Squillace and Maria Ciampini
Krystyne Rusek, for Respondent, Francine Catherine Sampogna
Harry Blaier, for the Respondent, Giuseppe Giovanni Miceli
COST ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Edwards J.
DATE: June 19, 2014