SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

CITATION: Spiteri Estate v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONSC 295

COURT FILE NO.: 12-56042

DATE: January 14th, 2015

RE: Christopher Spiteri, as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Tessa Spiteri et. al. ,

Plaintiffs

AND:

The Attorney General of Canada et. al., Defendants

BEFORE: MASTER MACLEOD

COUNSEL: C. Katie Black for the Plaintiffs

Miriam Vale-Peters for the defendant Hay

Agnieszka Zagorska for the defendant Attorney General of Canada

HEARD: In writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] On October 23rd, 2014 I released my decision regarding the costs of a motion for summary judgment. As outlined in those reasons, the motion was not actually argued except for the question of costs. This is because the parties had settled the action but had agreed they would argue costs before the master.

[2] The costs that were awarded were the costs of the action to the date of the motion. The plaintiff now seeks additional costs of arguing the motion. That is the costs of arguing about costs. In paragraph 73 of my endorsement I had indicated that there would be no costs of the costs motion unless there were factors such as undisclosed offers to settle which had not been brought to my attention.

[3] There was an offer to settle that had been disclosed in the Attorney General’s materials. That was an offer by the plaintiff to accept $45,600.00 made on July 3rd, 2014. It was not a rule 49 offer and it was not accepted. Instead the parties agreed to argue the question of costs.

[4] The costs of the action awarded by me were based upon the costs outline submitted by the plaintiffs and that outline included all of the time spent preparing for the summary judgment motion. So while I agree with Ms. Black that I am not functus in this matter I do not agree that the July 3rd offer is a reason to make an additional costs award.

[5] There will be no further order for costs.

Master MacLeod