Court File and Parties
CITATION: Dhawan v. Wehbe, 2015 ONSC 2545
COURT FILE NO.: 10-47945
DATE: 2015/04/17
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Pawan Dhawan, Plaintiff
AND:
Amado Wehbe, Defendant
BEFORE: Justice Patrick Smith
COUNSEL: Paul Auerbach, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mitchell Kitagawa, Counsel for the Defendant
HEARD: April 17, 2015 (at Ottawa)
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Plaintiff has brought this motion for an order setting aside the Registrar’s Order dismissing the Plaintiff’s action for delay. The Defendant opposes the motion.
[2] The Plaintiff requested a brief adjournment of the motion. The Defendant opposed that request.
[3] I will not set out the full history of the matter save and except to mention the following.
[4] The action involves a motor vehicle accident that occurred on November 23, 2006. The action was commenced by Statement of Claim on November 19, 2008. The action has not yet been set down for trial.
[5] The registrar has dismissed the action on two separate occasions.
[6] The Defendant consented to setting aside the first order dismissing the action and to a number of requests made by the Plaintiff to extend the time to set the action down.
[7] On November 25, 2014 the Registrar dismissed the action for the second time. The Plaintiff has brought this motion to set aside that order.
[8] The motion is adjourned peremptorily on both parties to September 24, 2015 at 10 am for hearing on the following terms:
The Plaintiff may serve additional affidavit material on or before May 29, 2015;
The Defendant may file responding affidavit material on or before June 17, 2015;
No further affidavit material may be filed after June 17th without the express permission of the Court.
Costs
[9] Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that no costs should be awarded to the Defendant for today because the motion was brought on the mistaken belief that it would not be opposed.
[10] Counsel for the Defendant has provided the Court with a Bill of Costs and suggests that the sums of $3,914.23 (partial indemnity) or $5,579.29 (full indemnity) are fair and appropriate for having to respond to the motion. Further, Counsel for the Defendant submits that there was no contact initiated by opposing counsel to advise that the motion would be brought and he was therefore required to respond within a short time period.
[11] In my view, it is best to have the issue of costs decided by the judge hearing the motion. Given the lengthy history of this file it will allow for a global assessment of all relevant factors including an assessment of the costs of today’s motion.
[12] Costs for today are therefore reserved to the judge hearing the motion.
Patrick Smith J.
Date: April 17, 2015
CITATION: Dhawan v. Wehbe, 2015 ONSC 2545
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Pawan Dhawan, Plaintiff
AND
Amado Wehbe, Defendant
BEFORE: P. Smith J.
COUNSEL: Paul Auerbach, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Mitchell Kitagawa Counsel for the Defendant
ENDORSEMENT
Patrick Smith J.
Released: April 17, 2015