Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-12- 468882
DATE: 20140924

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: JASWINDER KAUR JAJJ, Plaintiff/Respondent

AND:

100337 CANADA LIMITED cob as BJ INTERNATIONAL/BJ SUPERMARKET, Defendant/Appellant

AND RE: 100337 CANADA LIMITED cob as BJ INTERNATIONAL/BJ SUPERMARKET, Plaintiff by Counterclaim/Appellant

AND:

JASWINDER KAUR JAJJ and BALWANT SINGH JAJJ, Defendants to the Counterclaim/Respondents

BEFORE: Stinson J.

COUNSEL:
Kenneth Alexander, for the plaintiff and defendants to the counterclaim, respondents

Gregory Sidlofsky, for the defendant and plaintiff by counterclaim, appellant

HEARD at Toronto: by written submissions

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] In my endorsement released June 5, 2014, I allowed the appeal of the defendant from the dismissal of its motion before the Master seeking the removal of counsel for the plaintiff on the grounds of conflict of interest. Contrary to the conclusion of the Master, I found that a disqualifying conflict was present and that he should therefore have granted the defendant’s motion. The parties have been unable to resolve the issue of costs and have therefore made written submissions.

liability

[2] When the Master dismissed the defendant’s motion, he fixed the costs of the motion at $3,000 and ordered that they be payable in the cause. Because I have allowed the appeal from the Master’s order, the defendant seeks costs before the Master and on the appeal. In my view, I have authority to deal with costs at both appearances.

[3] In relation of the appearance before the Master, I see no reason to revisit the quantum of that award. Because the defendant’s motion was well-founded, however, and it ought to have succeeded, in my view, those costs should be payable to the defendant forthwith and in any event of the cause.

[4] In relation to the appearance before me, the defendant prevailed. It therefore follows that it should recover costs.

Scale of costs

[5] The defendant seeks only partial indemnity costs, and I agree that is the appropriate approach.

Quantum

[6] As noted, I would not interfere with the quantum of costs awarded by the Master on the appearance before him.

[7] With respect to the costs of appeal, factums were prepared and considerably more effort was expended. The issue was an important one. The defendant prevailed.

[8] The defendant seeks costs of $7,000. In my view, in light of the fact that the same issues had been canvassed before the Master, that sum is excessive. Instead, I would fix the costs of the defendant in relation to the appeal at the all-inclusive sum of $4,250. That sum, too, should be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant forthwith.

Stinson J.

Date: September 24, 2014