Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

COURT FILE NO.: 128/14

DATE: 2014-07-16

RE: Michael Cannon, Plaintiff/Respondent

AND:

ParkLane Financial Group Limited, Trafalgar Associates Limited and Trafalgar Trading Limited, Defendants/Applicants

AND:

Gacich Financial Enterprises Inc. et al, Third Party Defendants/Respondents

BEFORE: Dambrot J.

COUNSEL:
Samuel S. Marr and Margaret Waddell, for the Plaintiff/Respondent

Junior Sirivar and Stephanie Sugar, for the Defendants/Applicants

Peter Jervis and Ramissa Hirji, for the Gacich Third Parties

Bruce O’Toole and Robert Brush for certain other Third Parties

Costs Endorsement

[1] On May 29, 2014, in a written endorsement, I dismissed an application brought by the ParkLane defendants for leave to appeal an order of Belobaba J. to the Divisional Court in which Belobaba J. stayed the third party claims in this class action until the completion of the common issues trial. I also gave the parties an opportunity to make brief written submissions as to costs if they were unable to settle those costs. Costs as between the third parties and the defendants have been settled. Costs as between the plaintiff and the defendants have not. I have now received and reviewed the costs submissions of the defendants and the plaintiffs.

[2] The plaintiff seeks costs on the partial indemnity scale in the amount of $34,540.00 plus HST for fees and $1,059.38 for disbursements. The defendants argue that an award of $10,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements payable in the cause, or alternatively within 30 days is appropriate.

[3] The defendants complain that the plaintiff’s proposal is well beyond the reasonable expectations of the defendants, includes a “staggering” number of preparation hours, reflects a failure of the plaintiff to avoid duplication with other responding parties, and exceeds what the third party groups appear to consider reasonable. The ParkLane defendants’ own costs outline totals $18,803.15 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

[4] The defendants’ argument overlooks or minimizes the following: (1) that the plaintiff took the lead on the application because it was of vital importance to the plaintiff to attempt to defeat the delay in the progress of this matter that the defendants sought to create; (2) that it is unsurprising that the plaintiff chose to have its senior lawyers respond to the application again because of the importance of the matter to the plaintiff; and (3) that it is unsurprising that the plaintiff expended more time on preparing for this application than did the third parties. When comparing the plaintiff’s cost submission to the defendant’s cost outline, it is important to bear in mind that 58 of the 83.4 hours attributed by the defendants to lawyer’s work were done by a lawyer with a 2013 call, and the remaining 25.4 hours were done by a lawyer with a 2003 call. Given the importance of the application to the interests of the plaintiff, there was no reason to expect the plaintiff to allocate the work in a symmetrical fashion.

[5] Having regard to all of the relevant considerations, I am satisfied that $30,000 all-inclusive is a figure that falls within the reasonable expectations of the defendants. I order them to pay costs in that amount to the plaintiff within thirty days.

M. Dambrot J.

Date: July 16, 2014