CITATION: Richardson v. Berkow, Cohen and Others, 2015 ONSC 2549

COURT FILE NO.: cv-14-511502

DATE: 20150417

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: JAMES RICHARDSON, Plaintiff

AND:

BERKOW, COHEN LLP, RANJAN DAS

and RUSSELL LEIGH YOUD, Defendants

BEFORE: STEWART J.

COUNSEL: Kenneth Laimon, for the Plaintiff

John Pirie, for the Defendants

HEARD: In Writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] In my endorsement of March 6, 2015, I invited counsel for the parties to provide written submissions on costs if that issue could not be agreed to by them.

[2] I now have received and considered those submissions.

[3] The moving party Defendants were successful in striking out the Plaintiff’s pleading on this Rule 21 motion. The Plaintiff was given leave to amend.

[4] The Defendants ask that costs be deferred for consideration until after its intended motion to strike the amended pleading is determined.

[5] The Plaintiff seeks costs of the motion and relies upon an offer to settle the motion delivered on January 17, 2015. The Plaintiff offered to deliver an amended pleading and to agree to a no-costs disposition or, alternatively, indicated a willingness to agree to costs in the cause.

[6] In my view, the Defendants achieved basic success on the motion. However, the outcome achieved does not represent total success, as leave to amend was granted.

[7] When all of the circumstances are taken into account, including the pre-motion settlement position taken on the Plaintiff’s behalf, the nature of the issue raised and the comparative success of the Defendants, I am of the view that the appropriate disposition of costs of the motion herein is that costs of this motion be ordered to be in the cause.

STEWART J.

Date: April 17, 2015