SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Ella Raitman, Plaintiff

AND

Medallion Developments (South Maple) Limited, Defendant

BEFORE: F.L. MYERS J.

COUNSEL: Jonathan Ng, counsel for the Plaintiff for the purposes of this motion only and Ella Raitman, in person

Sepideh Nassabi, for the Defendant

HEARD: In Writing

COSTS endorsement

[1] In my Endorsement of June 3, 2014, ONSC 3380, I dismissed this proceeding on the basis that it was res judicata and was clearly brought after expiry of the two year time limit period set out in the Limitations Act.

[2] I have now received submissions from the successful defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also sent me a letter replying to the reply submissions made by the defendant.

[3] The plaintiff understands from her experience in Newmarket that civil litigation has cost consequences. She concedes that she is not impecunious. In light of her purchase of a $700,000-plus house being the central issue in the litigation, she could not suggest otherwise.

[4] The plaintiff does not understand why the costs outline provided by the plaintiff now is significantly higher than the draft costs outline that the defendant provided to her when the matter was being argued before me. At the time the motion for directions was argued, the defendant’s counsel brought with her a costs outline relating solely to the motion. When I dismissed the action in its entirety in my Endorsement dated June 3, 2014, the defendant became entitled to seek costs for more than just the motion. It now seeks costs for the entire action.

[5] I have reviewed the defendant’s submissions and costs outline. I have also read Ms Raitman’s responses and heard her request for restraint. 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. The rates requested by the defendant for partial indemnity costs are quite reasonable. In all, bearing in mind proportionality, I find that the defendant is entitled to be paid costs of this action in the amount of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST. The plaintiff shall pay this amount forthwith.

F.L. Myers J.

Date: June 26, 2014