SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: 2147191 Ontario Inc. and Jaswinder Grewal, Plaintiffs (Moving Parties)

AND

Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd., Ranjit Singh Mahil,

and Dilawar Singh Khakh, Defendants (Responding Parties)

BEFORE: F.L. MYERS J.

COUNSEL: Shane P. Murphy, for the Plaintiffs (Moving Parties)

David S. Altshuller, for the Defendants (Responding Parties)

HEARD: In Writing

Costs endorsement

[1] In 2147191 Ontario Inc. v. Springdale Pizza Depot Ltd., 2014 ONSC 3442, I granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs and found them entitled to rescind their franchise relationship with the corporate defendant. The plaintiffs seek costs of $23,337.16 on a partial indemnity basis inclusive of disbursements and HST. The defendants take no issue with the rates proposed by counsel that I find to be quite reasonable. However, the defendants propose subjective snips off the various headings of hours claimed by the plaintiffs’ counsel. I do not propose to conduct a forensic review of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s bills. Nor will I second guess the manner in which they chose to conduct their case. Every litigation text provides that preparation by counsel is the key to successful advocacy. Absent unreasonableness, disproportionality, or other good cause, it is difficult to quibble with the success brought on by ample preparation. Having said that, the defendant has a point in arguing that the motion did not resolve all issues in the case. Several issues regarding the quantification of the plaintiffs’ damages have been referred to the Master for trial on consent. Quantum was pleaded and carefully detailed evidence was presented on that issue. The plaintiffs have not succeeded on that issue as yet and should not be entitled to costs for the work associated with it unless and until the issue is resolved and costs are ordered in their favour (if at all).

[2] I have reviewed the provisions of Rule 57.01 and the factors that are relevant to the exercise of my discretion under that Rule and under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.C.43 generally. In my view, the plaintiffs should have their costs in the amount of $16,000 for fees plus $1,605.56 for disbursements and HST as applicable. The plaintiffs should be entitled to claim the $3,231.50 that I have deferred from its fees if and when the issue of costs is assessed in respect of the reference on quantum. Costs in the amounts indicated are payable to the plaintiffs jointly and severally by the defendants jointly and severally within thirty (30) days.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: June 26, 2014