SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Court File No. CV-13-117132
2014 ONSC 6259
B E T W E E N:
FAROOQ DARMA
Plaintiff
- and -
ADVANCED UNIQUE TAXI AND LIMOUSINE SERVICES LTD.,
ARCH INSURANCE CANADA LTD,
JOHN DOE DRIVER and JOHN DOE OWNER
Defendants
R U L I N G O N C O S T S
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M. MCKELVEY
on July 24, 2014, at NEWMARKET, Ontario
APPEARANCES:
R. Mitri
Counsel for the Plaintiff
A. Fyfe
Counsel for the Defendants
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
RULING ON COSTS
Page 1
Transcript Ordered:
August 1, 2014
Transcript Completed:
September 23, 2014
Ordering Party Notified:
September 23, 2014
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 2014
RULING ON COSTS
MCKELVEY, J (Orally):
So I do feel that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs. There’s obviously an issue here with respect to the fact of the defendant Arch Insurance does not provide the addresses of the proposed new defendants to the plaintiff’s counsel. They relied on a need to maintain confidentiality for the addresses but I haven’t received a satisfactory explanation as to why they felt at liberty to disclose the identity of the new defendants but not their addresses; nor have I been referred to any statutory authority, which would justify the position taken by the insurer.
Even if I was satisfied that the addresses needed to be treated on a confidential basis, if the insurer felt that that was a basis to decline providing the information, then there were alternatives, in my view, available to the insurer which would have facilitated the proper service of the defendants. Ultimately this resulted in a consent order but it did require a motion on the part of the plaintiffs to add those parties and to have substituted service. In my view, all of this could have been done earlier on without the necessity for an attendance here today. So, I do feel that some award of costs should be made in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant, Arch Insurance.
One of the positions taken by Arch Insurance is that the amount of costs should be reduced because this was not only a motion for the adding of parties and substituted service of parties but also involved the production of police records.
I think that is a fair comment and one cannot burden the defendant for all of the costs of this motion and a good portion of those costs would have been incurred in any event given the fact that this was not the only issue that was brought forward by the plaintiffs on this motion.
The plaintiff’s counsel suggests that they wouldn’t have brought the motion for production of the police records; they were initially contemplating only a motion vis a vis the addition of the new drivers but the fact is that this motion was brought. This is the motion before me. There were different sets of relief and it’s not fair to the defendant to burden them with the costs of the motion in its entirety when the motion itself contemplated relief on a number of headings.
I also find that the costs outline, which claims partial indemnity costs of $2,640.00 for what is, essentially, a straight-forward motion is not something I would consider is within the reasonable expectation of the defendant as to what they would be required to pay and counsel has candidly acknowledged that the estimate of four hours time for appearance today was based on an expectation that she would be here considerably longer. The hourly rate, which is charged at $225.00 an hour, I view as being unreasonably high and taking all of those matters into account, I’m going to order costs in the sum of $750.00.
So, I’ve endorsed on the record for oral reasons given today, the defendant, Arch Insurance is ordered to pay the plaintiff costs assessed in the sum of $750.00 within 30 days.
MS.MITRI: Thank you, your honour.
THE COURT: Thank you. I’ll fill in the order accordingly. So I have filled in the sum of $750.00 in the costs portion. I’ve signed the order and I’ve added payable within 30 days.
MS. MITRI: Thank you, your honour
THE COURT: Thank you.
FORM 2
Certificate of Transcript
Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2)
I, Leanne Osborne, certify that this document is a true and accurate transcript of the recording of Darma v. Advanced Unique Taxi and Limousine Services Ltd et al in the Superior Court of Justice, held at 50 Eagle St E, Newmarket, Ontario taken from Recording No. 4911_402_20140724_084232_10_McKelvm which has been certified in Form 1.
21/09/2014___ _________________________________
Date Signature of authorized person(s)
Photostat copies of this transcript are not certified and have not been paid for unless they bear the original signature of Leanne Osborne and accordingly are in direct violation of the Administration of Justice Act, O. Reg. 587/91,
s. 3.