CITATION: 1483860 Ontario Inc. (Plan IT Search) v. Beaudoin, 2015 ONSC 2662

COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-405615

DATE: 20150423

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

1483860 ONTARIO INC., o/a Plan IT Search and 6573908 CANADA INC., o/a Plan IT Search Inc.

Plaintiffs

– and –

JAMES BEAUDOIN, 2103235 ONTARIO INC., WORLDHIRE INC., MASON STUBEL and PATRICIA BEAUDOIN

Defendants

Michael Gayed for the Plaintiffs

John H. Yach for the Defendants

HEARD: In writing

PERELL, J.

REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS

A. INTRODUCTION

[1] In this acrimonious litigation between an employer and former employees, the Defendants succeeded in having an Anton Piller Order set aside and in resisting a contempt proceeding being launched. See 1483860 Ontario Inc. (Plan IT Search) v. Beaudoin, 2015 ONSC 641.

[2] The Defendants now seek - on a full indemnity basis - costs of $450,480.36, all inclusive, to be paid within 30 days. The Defendants also seek an order prohibiting the Plaintiffs from taking any further steps in the action until the costs award is paid. The Defendants justify their claim for full indemnity by alleging reprehensible conduct by the Plaintiffs’ principal and main witness for the interlocutory motion. They also disparage the conduct of the Plaintiffs’ lawyer.

[3] For their part, the unsuccessful Plaintiffs seek to set off the costs for a preliminary production motion and for a related abandoned appeal, but their primary submission about costs is that there should be no order as to costs.

[4] The Plaintiffs submit that the Defendants should recover no costs because they unreasonably refused an Offer to Settle that would have substantially resolved the dispute about the Anton Piller Order.

[5] In the alternative, the Plaintiffs submit that the scale of costs should be based on a partial indemnity and not a full indemnity basis. And, in any event, they submit that the amount claimed for costs by the Defendants is grossly excessive.

[6] The Plaintiffs submit that in all the circumstances, the appropriate quantum of costs, if any, to be paid the Defendants is $14,577.85 (that is, $55,000 for the Anton Piller motions less the Plaintiffs’ costs of $40,422.15 on a partial indemnity basis from the date of the Offer to Settle.) The Plaintiffs then claim costs of $29,331.04 for a production motion that led to an appeal and an abandoned motion for leave to appeal. It seems on this alternative theory, the Plaintiffs are ultimately claiming $14,753.19 for themselves ($29,331.04-$14,577.85).

[7] I am not much persuaded by the submissions of either party, and for the reasons that follow, I make a hybrid costs award.

[8] For the Anton Piller motion, I award the Defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis of $100,000 payable in any event of the cause less $10,000 for the production motion payable on a partial indemnity basis to the Plaintiffs in the cause.

[9] In my opinion, there should be a punitive costs award in the circumstances of this case, but the appropriate award is not full indemnity payable forthwith. Rather, the appropriate order is costs to the Defendants in any event of the cause.

[10] There is more than enough mud to throw in this case, and the mud-slinging Defendants ultimately may not emerge from this litigation spotless. In the circumstances of this case, with the merits yet to be decided, the Defendants do not make out a case for full indemnity costs for the Anton Piller motion and an associated attempt to schedule a contempt hearing.

[11] In my opinion, the award to the Defendants should not be reduced or affected by the Plaintiffs’ Offer to Settle, which was no more than a feeble effort to reduce the adverse costs from an ill-advised and ill-prosecuted Anton Piller motion and contempt proceeding.

[12] The partial indemnity award to the Defendants payable in any event of the cause should, however, be reduced by a partial indemnity award payable to the Plaintiffs for a production motion that the Defendants ultimately abandoned.

[13] Before explaining my award, I note that the written submissions that I considered were comprised of: (1) the Defendants’ Costs Submissions dated February 17, 2015; (2) the Plaintiffs’ Costs Submissions dated March 5, 2015; (3) the Defendants’ Reply Costs Submissions dated April 14, 2015 (objected to for late delivery); and (4) the Plaintiffs’ Reply to the Reply dated April 22, 2015 (objected to for unauthorized delivery). The parties’ respective silly objections to the delivery of some of this material is indicative of their incivility and tedious failure to co-operate in the administration of justice in an adversary system with rules of civil procedure.

B. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[14] As described in 1483860 Ontario Inc. (Plan IT Search) v. Beaudoin, supra, in August 2009, the Defendants James Beaudoin and 2103235 Ontario Inc. (“Beaudoin’s Corporation”) resigned as consultants for the Plaintiffs, 1483860 Ontario Inc. and 6573908 Canada Inc. (collectively “Plan IT”). A few months earlier, in March 2009, Mr. Beaudoin, along with the Defendant Mason Stubel, who had been a contractor for Plan IT in 2006 and 2007, incorporated the Defendant Worldhire Inc., to compete with the Plaintiffs.

[15] Between March and August 2009, Mr. Beaudoin continued to work for the Plaintiffs while he was setting up a rival business. Then he left to join the new business. After Mr. Beaudoin’s departure, almost a year passed, during which Joseph Zitek, the principal of Plan IT, discovered Mr. Beaudoin’s involvement with Worldhire Inc., and so, on June 24, 2010, the Plaintiffs commenced an action, and on July 16, 2010, on a motion without notice, Justice Ellen Macdonald granted the Plaintiffs an Anton Piller Order.

[16] In his supporting affidavit for the Anton Piller Order, Mr. Zitek relied on Mr. Beaudoin having acknowledged prior wrongdoing, and Mr. Zitek alleged breaches of a Consulting Services Agreement.

[17] Mr. Zitek, however, did not disclose the circumstances of the signing of an Acknowledgement Letter or the Consulting Services Agreement. He did not point out that the non-solicitation clause of the Consulting Services Agreement applied only to candidates under contract with Plan IT, of which there was only one person not the 12 alleged by him.

[18] In his supporting affidavit, Mr. Zitek deposed that he first learned about Worldhire Inc. placing candidates that had been on Plan IT’s candidate listings in July 2009. He deposed that over the next ten or eleven months, he learned about more placements. In his affidavit, under the heading “Full and Frank Disclosure and Undertaking as to Damages,” he says that: “the Plaintiffs did not request the Anton Piller Order at an earlier date given that Plan IT only recently learned of the linkage between Mr. Beaudoin and Worldhire Inc., the incorporation of Worldhire Inc. prior to Mr. Beaudoin’s resignation and Mr. Beaudoin’s role at Worldhire in or about January or February 2010.”

[19] Mr. Zitek’s supporting affidavit gives the impression or makes the inference that the various placements of candidates on Plan IT’s candidate list with clients on Worldhire Inc.’s client lists could only be achieved by Mr. Beaudoin wrongfully providing Worldhire Inc. with Plan IT’s confidential candidate and confidential client lists. However, this impression or inference was misleading, and it was not frank or fair disclosure.

[20] On July 20, 2010, the Anton Piller Order was executed at Mr. Beaudoin’s home. Documents and computers were seized and removed, including Mrs. Beaudoin’s private correspondence, photos, and medical records. Included in the seized material was a USB key that did contain candidate and client information that Mr. Beaudoin had gathered during his time with Plan IT. I later concluded that the commercial value of this information was much overstated.

[21] On August 4, 2010, the Defendants brought a motion to set aside the Anton Piller Order on the grounds that: (a) the Plaintiffs had made false disclosure; (b) the Plaintiffs had not satisfied the test for the Order; and (c) the terms of the Order were improper.

[22] In response, the Defendants brought a cross-motion alleging that the Defendants had breached the Anton Piller Order. The Plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Beaudoin interfered with the execution of the Anton Piller Order but these allegations, which underpinned a request for a contempt order, were eventually not made out. I later held that there was no evidence that Mr. Beaudoin was obstructionist, contemptuous, or other than adequately co-operative in the intrusion on his home.

[23] The Plaintiffs also sought an injunctive order against all Defendants, prohibiting them from contacting or contracting with any of 80,000 employee candidates and 500 employer clients, in perpetuity.

[24] The competing motions however, were not soon argued.

[25] The main motions got sidetracked by other interlocutory activity. First, the Defendants brought a production motion, which was heard by Master Short on November 9, 2010. Master Short rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that Mr. Beaudoin had engaged in contemptuous, improper and abusive behavior and ought not to be heard on the production motion. At paragraph 80 of his Reasons for Decision he stated:

80. ... I see nothing improper, abusive or contemptuous in the Defendants bringing this motion. However, I am troubled by a litigant that sees nothing unsettling about seizing a party's records based on ex parte order and then denying them any access to those documents for the purpose of preparing the motion to set aside, while asserting that those same documents ought to have been immediately turned over to the plaintiffs.

[26] Master Short rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that a Master lacked jurisdiction to order inspection of the Plaintiffs’ databases with their client lists and ordered production of the information. He reserved costs to the Judge hearing the outstanding motions.

[27] The Plaintiffs appealed Master Short’s decision.

[28] While the appeal was pending, both parties attempted to bring on their competing motions. The Plaintiffs submit that they did so properly, but they submit that the Defendants’ conduct was improper. In their costs submissions, the Plaintiffs state that although the Defendants had served a notice of motion to set aside the Anton Piller Order, their supporting affidavit was not sworn until November 17, 2010 and then the Defendants attempted to have their own motion argued without cross-examinations or any opportunity for the Plaintiffs to deliver a reply affidavit.

[29] In any event, there was insufficient court time to hear the motions, and on consent, the Defendants agreed to a narrow restrictive interlocutory injunction pending the return of a revised motion by the Plaintiffs that sought more – much more – extensive interlocutory relief. It seems that the Defendants thought they could live with a narrow injunctive order pending the return of a motion for more extensive relief, which they vigorously planned to resist.

[30] In the result, Justice Chapnik stayed the Anton Piller Order and granted an interim interlocutory motion restraining the Defendants from using the Plaintiffs’ confidential information pending the return of the motions. She envisioned that there would be a special appointment in July 2011 where the Plaintiffs’ entitlement to a continuation or an expansion of the interim injunction would be tested. Justice Chapnik’s Order stated:

5. The Anton Piller Order and the Order of The Honorable Madam Justice Himel dated July 26, 2010, in these proceedings be and are hereby stayed, without prejudice to the Plaintiffs’ pending motion originally returnable November 24, 2010, and the relief sought therein, and without prejudice to the Defendants’ motion to set aside the above Orders.

6. The Defendants be and are hereby restrained from utilizing the Plaintiffs’ confidential information pending the return of the special appointment whereat the Plaintiffs and Defendants’ motions will be heard.

7. The motions by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants returnable today as well as the motions returnable on January 13 and 14, 2011, be and the same are hereby adjourned to a special appointment returnable on July 13 and 14, 2011.

8. The costs of today be and the same are hereby reserved to the Judge hearing the motions on July 13 and 14, 2011

[31] I pause here to note that my review of the Defendants’ Bill of Costs reveals that between July 22, 2010, when he was retained, and the end of November 2010, John Yach, the Defendants’ lawyer (called 1993), who had an hourly rate of $550.00, had expended 189.4 hours and Thomas Finlay (called 2011), then a student with an hourly rate of $150.00 had expended 11.5 hours. The Defendants are seeking full indemnity for their work during this period; i.e., $105,895, exclusive of disbursements and HST.

[32] No hearing took place in July 2011, and three years passed, during which the parties continued to wrangle about the treatment of the evidence seized during the execution of the Anton Piller Order and about the Defendants’ request to inspect the documents referred to in Mr. Zitek’s affidavit and, in particular, the database with information about the persons whom the Defendants were to be enjoined from doing business.

[33] The Defendants were resisting the disclosure of the seized documents until their challenge to the Anton Piller Order was heard and the Plaintiffs were resisting producing documents that had been referred to in Mr. Zitek’s affidavit in support of expanding the Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief. I query whether the positions being taken by both parties were reasonable having regard to their disclosure obligations in a civil proceeding but without resolving the merits of their respective positions, at this juncture, all I can say is that the wrangling is an example of the lack of co-operation and animosity of the parties.

[34] During the three year period, the appeal of Master Short’s decision was heard by Justice Roberts on September 7, 2011. Justice Roberts set aside those parts of Master Short’s Order that required the Plaintiffs to disclose the information about the client lists. She did so on the basis that Master Short did not have the jurisdiction to effectively vary or amend a Judge’s Order. In paragraph 13 of her endorsement, she stated:

In consequence, paragraphs 1, 3, 5, and 6 of the order of Master Short must be set aside. This is unfortunate because there has now been substantial delay in dealing with this matter and there should be no question that the Defendants are entitled at least to bring a motion to seek production of documents forming the basis for Mr. Zitek’s supporting affidavit for the ex parte Anton Piller order, although whether any documents should be produced is a question very much in dispute between the parties.”

[35] Justice Roberts rejected the Plaintiffs’ argument that the Defendants were not entitled to be heard because of the alleged contempt. Justice Roberts ordered that the costs of the appeal be dealt with by the Judge hearing the outstanding motions.

[36] The Defendants appealed Justice Roberts’ Order, but they did not proceed with the leave to appeal motion. Practically speaking, the appeal was abandoned.

[37] The Plaintiffs now request costs of the motion before Master Short and of the abandoned leave to appeal motion and appeal. In this regard, the Plaintiffs request partial indemnity costs of $29,331.04.

[38] Still during the three year period, in 2013, prompted by the delivery of a status hearing notice from the Court, the parties rescheduled the hearing of the dormant motions, and argument of the motions was scheduled for August 2014.

[39] On June 10, 2013, Master McAfee issued a timetabling Order for the action and the motions. Counsel for the Defendants did not attend this hearing. No Order was made for costs.

[40] In December 2013, the Defendants brought a motion for security for costs. On December 19, 2013, the Defendants served a three-volume motion record. They unilaterally selected a hearing date in March, 2014. This motion was eventually abandoned with costs assessed against the Defendants in the amount of $7,650.00.

[41] I pause again to note that my review of the Defendants’ Bill of Costs reveals that between December 2010 and the end of December 2013, Mr. Yach expended 151.4 hours, Mr. Finlay expended 5.1 hours as a student and 4.7 as a lawyer with an hourly rate of $225, and Jennifer Duff (called 2003) expended 4.8 hours at an hourly rate of $350. The Defendants are claiming full indemnity of $86,795 for this period, exclusive of disbursements and HST.

[42] In January, 2014, the Plaintiffs formally brought their motion to extend and to make final and permanent the interim interlocutory injunction. Further, the Plaintiffs sought an order sealing part of the motion record, which was said to contain confidential information. And the Plaintiffs asked that the Court set a schedule for a contempt hearing for Mr. Beaudoin’s alleged interference with the execution of the Anton Piller Order.

[43] In response to the Plaintiffs’ motion, the Defendants formally brought a cross-motion and sought orders: (1) setting aside the Anton Piller Order; and (2) requiring the Independent Supervising Solicitor (“ISS”) to return the seized documents and property, some of which was the personal and private property of Mrs. Beaudoin, who had nothing to do with her husband’s business activities.

[44] The timetabling Order of Master McAfee required the Plaintiffs to set this action down for trial by January 17, 2014. The Plaintiffs requested a status hearing to extend the deadline to set this matter down for trial, and on consent on June 10, 2014, Master Glustein, as he then was, extended the set down date by one year and timetabled the motions. No order was made regarding costs.

[45] Cross-examinations followed for one day in July, 2014 (Mr. Zitek), two days in August, 2014 (Mr. Stubel and Mr. Beaudoin) and one day in November, 2014 (Mr. Beaudoin continued). The transcripts were 620 pages.

[46] In August 2014, the Plaintiffs served an Offer to Settle the competing motions. The Offer proposed the disposition of the motions as follows: (a) The Defendants consent to an injunction restraining them from employing the Plaintiffs’ confidential information; (b) the Defendants consent to an adjournment of the request for a timetable for a contempt hearing; (c) the Plaintiffs consent to an Order setting aside the Anton Piller Order; (d) the Plaintiffs consent to an Order directing the ISS to return seized items; and (e) the parties agree that the transcripts of the cross-examinations of Messrs. Zitek, Beaudoin and Stubel as well as answers to outstanding questions shall be employed as discovery transcripts.

[47] The Offer to Settle was not accepted, but the August 2014 motions did not proceed, and they were adjourned to January 2015.

[48] Having regard to the Offer to Settle, the Plaintiffs request costs in the amount of $40,422.15 from August 27, 2014, payable forthwith on a partial indemnity basis. Of this sum $30,522 is for fees, $3,967.86 for HST on fees and $5,932.29 for disbursements.

[49] After the hearing in August 2014 did not proceed, more affidavit materials were filed for the hearing (there were four banker boxes of motion materials).

[50] There were two interlocutory motions in December, 2014.

[51] On December 5, 2014, on consent, Master Hawkins awarded costs for an abandoned security for costs motion.

[52] On December 30, 2014, there was a refusals motion. Master Dash made no award as to costs.

[53] Just before the motions were to be heard, notwithstanding that the Plaintiffs still wished to have Mr. Beaudoin found in contempt for interfering with the execution of the Anton Piller Order, the Plaintiffs unilaterally agreed that the Anton Piller Order should be dissolved. The Plaintiffs then submitted that the motion to set aside the Anton Piller Order was moot.

[54] Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs’ concession, the motions proceeded in order to determine whether the Anton Piller Order should ever have been granted.

[55] At the hearing of the motions, the Plaintiffs abandoned their request for an expansive interlocutory injunction. Instead, they asked for a much reduced ambit of interlocutory relief. They did, however, as already noted, press forward on the request for a contempt hearing to be scheduled.

[56] I heard two days of argument and reserved judgment.

[57] I pause again to note that my review of the Defendants’ Bill of Costs reveals that for the period between January 1, 2014 and the end of the argument on January 20, 2015, Mr. Yach expended 258.1 hours, Mr. Finlay 73.3 hours, and Ms. Duff 12 hours. The Defendants’ full indemnity claim for this period is $162,648.00, exclusive of disbursements and HST.

[58] I released my reasons on January 28, 2015. I concluded that but for the fact that the Anton Piller Order and the Interim Injunction Order were obtained as a result of an ex parte hearing, they should never have been granted. I concluded that the Plaintiffs did not make out a case for sealing any of its motion material, which might be proprietary but was not confidential, and they did not make out a case that Mr. Beaudoin’s conduct in relation to the Anton Piller Order was contemptuous.

[59] On the Anton Piller motion, I was satisfied that there was a prima facie case or at least a serious issue to be tried that Mr. Beaudoin breached the Consulting Services Agreement and his common law obligations as an employee during his tenure of employment with the Plaintiffs. See Boehmer Box L.P. v. Ellis Packaging Ltd., [2007] O.J. No. 1694 (S.C.J.). I was satisfied that the Plaintiffs had shown a serious issue to be tried that Mr. Stubel and Worldhire Inc. were complicit in Mr. Beaudoin’s and Beaudoin’s Corporation’s wrongdoing.

[60] Because it has some relevance to the exercise of my discretion with respect to costs and when they should be payable, I now add that in the light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Mr. Beaudoin may be exposed to a finding that he breached a common law duty that applies to all contracting parties to act honestly in the performance of contractual obligations.

[61] I am not to be taken as making any finding about the ultimate merits of the Plaintiffs’ claim, and at this juncture, the relevance of Sattva Capital is only that the Defendants have made an issue of the conduct of Mr. Zitek while there is some doubt about the purity of their own conduct as a contracting party.

[62] I concluded that while there may have been a serious issue to be tried that Mr. Beaudoin had breached his duties as an employee or breached the restrictive covenants in his employment contract; however, the Plaintiffs could not in 2010, and did not in 2015, establish any irreparable harm. I concluded that the balance of convenience never favoured the granting of an interlocutory injunction. I concluded that the interlocutory injunction should be dissolved and not extended. Further, I held that the Plaintiffs did not make adequate disclosure to the Court, and that circumstance provided another reason for terminating the injunctive orders as did the inordinate delay in getting the action to trial.

[63] I set aside the Anton Piller Order and the interim interlocutory order that was granted in November 2010. I dismissed the Plaintiffs’ motion. I granted the Defendants’ cross-motion. I invited the parties to make costs submissions.

[64] I have noted above a partial breakdown of the Defendants’ claim for full indemnity costs. Mr. Yach also expended 41.5 hours preparing the Bill of Costs and the Defendants’ Costs Submissions. The full indemnity request for these services is $22,825, exclusive of disbursements and HST.

[65] The Defendants claim disbursements of $33,451.43, exclusive of HST, of which the major items are: (a) travel expenses of $13,174.69; (b) expert report $4,163.75; (c) examiner fees $3,402.50; (d) photocopying $2,695.25; (e) computer assisted legal research $2,530.11; (f) court run $2,017.69; (g) transcript fees $1,451.70; and (h) bailiff fees $1,127.66.

[66] Of these disbursements, there is no explanation of what a “court run” is and why a bailiff was retained by the Defendants responding to an Anton Piller motion.

C. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

[67] The Defendants’ lawyers docketed 727.9 hours for the various attendances associated with the Anton Piller Order and the competing motions. The Defendants submit that they are entitled to full indemnity because of Mr. Zitek’s failure to make proper disclosure. They submit that Mr. Zitek and the Plaintiffs perpetrated a fraud on the Court in obtaining an ex parte Anton Piller Order.

[68] While I was of the view and continue to be of the view that Mr. Zitek, as the principal of the Plaintiffs, did not make proper disclosure to the Court, and while I am of the view that he was very ill-advised to let his anger and perhaps embarrassment at what he perceived to be Mr. Beaudoin’s disloyalty and dishonesty get much the better of him, I do not believe that either he or the Plaintiffs’ lawyers were attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the Court.

[69] Defrauding the Court is a very serious allegation, and I think that frustration and unmerited righteous indignation in being embroiled in litigation has gotten the better of the Defendants and their lawyer in making that allegation.

[70] I make no finding on the merits beyond what I found on the motions that the Plaintiffs had shown that there was a prima facie case or at least a serious issue to be tried that Mr. Beaudoin breached the Consulting Services Agreement and his common law obligations as an employee during his tenure of employment with the Plaintiffs, but I think it behoves a litigant who it appears was being paid commissions for almost six months while he was setting up a rival business to his employer’s business should show some caution in accusing his employer of reprehensible conduct and of abusing its right to obtain relief from the Court for what may turn out to be a successful claim for breach of contract and misappropriation of property.

[71] The merits of the Plaintiffs’ claim remain to be determined, and the Defendants may have strong defences, but the Defendants should not be emboldened to claim an excessive and unreasonable award of costs by their success on an Anton Piller motion that was fatally flawed.

[72] The Defendants were the successful party on interlocutory motions, and they are entitled to costs in accordance with the normal principles that guide the Court’s discretion.

[73] And, in my opinion, the costs award should be punitive because of Mr. Zitek’s failure to make proper disclosure, some of which he acknowledged and corrected. But the Plaintiffs may ultimately succeed in their action, and, in my opinion, the appropriate sanction is to make the Plaintiffs liable for costs of $100,000 on a partial indemnity scale for their failed interlocutory proceedings payable to the Defendants in any event of the cause.

[74] I arrive at the $100,000 figure by reviewing the various items of the Defendants’ Bill of Costs. Having done so, I think there is merit in the Plaintiffs’ various submissions to the end that the costs being claimed are excessive and unreasonable. From my role case managing class actions, I have some experience with complex and expensive interlocutory motions, and I cannot see any justification for expending almost a half a million dollars for an interlocutory motion for what, at the end of the day, is an employer-employee dispute.

[75] I would add that from my review of the Bill of Costs and of the costs submissions and from my understanding of the procedural record leading to the Anton Piller motions, the responsibility for the disproportionate amount of time and energy spent is a mutually shared responsibility. Both parties were not co-operative, and both parties appear to have gotten into the muddy pigpen of ill-tempered, acrimonious litigation. Both parties appear to have seized opportunities to discomfort and provoke one another.

[76] In my opinion, $100,000, all inclusive on a partial indemnity basis is a fair and reasonable award in the circumstances. The Defendants were successful on the interlocutory motions. The Plaintiffs’ attempt at interlocutory relief was overreaching and posed a serious threat to the livelihood of the Defendants. An Anton Piller Order is inherently invasive, and the Plaintiffs could reasonably anticipate that their aggressive litigation strategy would be met with an aggressive and fulsome response from the Defendants. The record for these costs submissions, suggests that had the Plaintiffs been successful, they would have claimed at least $100,000.

[77] The Plaintiffs’ Offer to Settle does not provide a reason for setting off or reducing the costs award to the Defendants. It was reasonable for the Defendants to ignore the Offer which was not dispositive of the interlocutory dispute between the parties and kept alive the Plaintiffs’ proposed contempt proceeding.

[78] The circumstances of the various Orders associated with Master Short’s decision, the appeal and the abandoned leave to appeal, however, are worthy of a costs award to set off against the award being made in the cause to the Defendants. I, therefore, award the Plaintiffs $10,000 payable in the cause.

[79] Order accordingly.

D. CONCLUSION

[80] In the context of its costs submissions, the Plaintiffs asked that I make an order that this litigation be case managed and that the transcripts from the cross-examinations be treated as examinations for discovery.

[81] I made no orders in this regard. If the Plaintiffs wish this relief, they should bring the appropriate motion.

Perell, J.

Released: April 23, 2015

CITATION: 1483860 Ontario Inc. (Plan IT Search) v. Beaudoin, 2015 ONSC 2662

COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-405615

DATE: 20150423

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

1483860 ONTARIO INC., o/a Plan IT Search and 6573908 CANADA INC., o/a Plan IT Search Inc.

Plaintiffs

– and –

JAMES BEAUDOIN, 2103235 ONTARIO INC., WORLDHIRE INC., MASON STUBEL and PATRICIA BEAUDOIN

Defendants

REASONS FOR DECISION – COSTS

PERELL J.

Released: April 23, 2015