Donath v. Hughes Containers Ltd., 2015 ONSC 1306

COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-497852

DATE: 20150310

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Anna Donath, Plaintiff

AND:

Hughes Containers Ltd., Defendant

BEFORE: Pollak J.

COUNSEL: James Heeney and Sarah Vokey, for the Plaintiff

Rich Appiah, for the Defendant

HEARD: November 20, 2014

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Plaintiff was awarded $38,750, less $19,673 already paid by the Defendant, plus an additional two months of compensation, less any income earned during those two months. This resulted in a total award of $26,826, plus pre-judgment interest. The Plaintiff claims that as the successful party she is entitled to a cost award of $18,215 on a partial indemnity basis.

[2] The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff is not entitled to costs because the amount she was awarded in this matter just slightly exceeds the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. In the alternative, the Defendant submits that the hourly rate claimed by Plaintiff counsel is unreasonably high and that the Plaintiff’s costs award should not exceed the amount claimed by the Defendant in the event that it had been successful. The Defendant relies on the factors set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.0. 1990, Reg. 194 and the principle of proportionality.

[3] The Plaintiff insists that she is entitled to costs, observing that at trial the Defendant itself submitted a bill of costs and did not take the position that the Plaintiff should not be entitled to any costs. With respect to the Defendant’s alternative position, the Plaintiff argues that the hourly rate claimed by her counsel is reasonable, and notes that the hours her counsel worked were less than those billed by the Defendant’s counsel. Both counsel rely on jurisprudence to support their positions.

[4] I have read and considered the submissions of the parties, and I have taken into account the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules. I am required to award costs that are reasonable and fair: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291,188 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.).

[5] Each case must be evaluated on its own facts. Having considered all of the factors set out in both the Rules and Boucher, I find that it is just and reasonable in this case to award to the Plaintiff costs in the amount of $18,215 and I so order.

Pollak J.

Date: March 10, 2015