SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-39-00
DATE: 20140801
RE: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. and Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231
BEFORE: Justice D.L. Edwards
COUNSEL:
Douglas H. Levitt, for the Plaintiff
Michael A. Spears, for the Defendant
COST ENDORSEMENT
[1] By endorsement dated June 16, 2014, I allowed the appeal by Maple Ridge of the Judgment of Deputy Judge Robert A. Filkin, dated March 8, 2013, in favour of the Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231 (“Condominium Corporation”). I requested cost submissions. I have received and reviewed the same.
[2] At the appeal, Maple Ridge brought a motion to strike out portions of the Condominium Corporation’s factum and compendium. I dismissed the motion and reserved on the issue of costs. I will first deal with the costs of the motion.
[3] The Condominium Corporation seeks costs of that motion on a partial indemnity basis of $1,583.47 including HST.
[4] Maple Ridge submits that the costs should follow the event and, as Maple Ridge was successful on the appeal, that it ought to be awarded costs on the partial indemnity basis. Alternatively, if I were to grant costs with respect to the preliminary motion, Maple Ridge submits that the sum of $500 inclusive of HST plus disbursements would be appropriate.
[5] I am satisfied that the Condominium Corporation should be awarded costs of the motion. After considering the relevant factors in Rule 57.01(1), I award the sum of $1,000 fixed to the Condominium Corporation for the cost of the motion.
[6] Maple Ridge seeks costs of the appeal in the amount of $11,813.31 fixed.
[7] The Condominium Corporation submits that there should be no cost award for the appeal because the parties were denied meaningful appellate review and the disposition of the appeal on the merits, due to my ruling that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient. Counsel refers me to the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier, 2002 45084 (ON CA), 164 O.A.C 234, [2002] O.J. No. 3738. However, that case is distinguishable from the case before me, as the appeal was argued before me entirely, and on its merits.
[8] As an alternative, counsel for the Condominium Corporation argues that the amount sought by Maple Ridge ought to be significantly lower as the award of costs must be commensurate with the value of the lawsuit to the parties. The amount at issue in the Small Claims Court trial was $8,303.24.
[9] I am satisfied that the amount claimed as costs by Maple Ridge is slightly beyond what is commensurate with the value of the lawsuit to the parties, and what an unsuccessful litigant could expect to pay.
[10] Accordingly, I award the sum of $10,000 fixed, all-inclusive cost to Maple Ridge as costs of the appeal to be paid by the Condominium Corporation.
[11] In the further alterative, Condominium Corporation submits that I order a stay of the payment of the costs until disposition of its appeal of my order. I see no reason to do so.
Edwards J.
DATE: August 1, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-39-00
DATE: 20140801
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. and Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231
BEFORE: Justice D.L. Edwards
COUNSEL: Douglas H. Levitt, for the Plaintiff
Michael A. Spears, for the Defendant
COST ENDORSEMENT
D.L. Edwards J.
DATE: August 1, 2014