ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-415838
DATE: 20150810
BETWEEN:
SHIVAM BHATT, a Minor, by his Litigation Guardian, BINA BHATT, SAURABH BHATT and BINA BHATT
Plaintiffs
– and –
WILLIAM BEASLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED and
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO
Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
Peter Cho and Luke Hamer, for the plaintiffs
Chris T. Blom, for the defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim, William Beasley Enterprises Limited
George Bekairis, for the defendant by Counterclaim, Saurabh Bhatt
HEARD: March 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25,
26, 2015
M. D. FAIETA, j.
ADDENDUM
[1] On consent of the parties:
Paragraph 202 of the Reasons for Decision is amended so that the amount awarded to Shivam Bhatt for future pecuniary loss is $30,581.00 rather than $32,081.00;
Paragraph 203 is amended so that the amount awarded to Mr. Bhatt and Mrs. Bhatt for future pecuniary loss is $21,500.00 rather than $21,000.
[2] By letter dated July 10, 2015, the defendant Beasley has requested production of the dockets of opposing counsel in order to obtain the “best evidence of the time and expenses incurred”. The plaintiffs object to this request. No additional explanation was provided by the defendant Beasley. Such detail is not normally required by the Rules.
[3] In Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291, at para. 26, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated:
The express language of rule 57.01(3) makes it clear that the fixing of costs is not simply a mechanical exercise. In particular, the rule makes clear that the fixing of costs does not begin and end with a calculation of hours times rates. The introduction of a costs grid was not meant to produce that result, but rather to signal that this is one factor in the assessment process, together with the other factors in rule 57.01. Overall, as this court has said, the objective is to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the particular proceeding, rather than an amount fixed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant.
[4] In addition, although about $230,000 in costs is sought by the plaintiffs, and about $49,000 is sought by the defendant by counterclaim (both on a partial indemnity basis), the mere size of the amount claimed is not a sufficient reason to require the parties to undertake the expense of preparing such dockets, nor to spend the time likely required to redact any reference in those dockets to matters protected by solicitor-client privilege.
[5] Finally, while there may be cases where such detail is required, I am not persuaded that the requirement of the production of computer dockets is appropriate in this case.
[6] Accordingly, I dismiss the defendant’s request for computer copies of the dockets incurred on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendant by counterclaim.
[7] I order that the defendant submit its responding costs submissions within two weeks of today’s date.
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
Released: August 10, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-415838
DATE: XXXX
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
SHIVAM BHATT, a Minor, by his Litigation Guardian, BINA BHATT, SAURABH BHATT and BINA BHATT
Plaintiffs
– and –
WILLIAM BEASLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED and
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO
Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim
ADDENDUM
Mr. Justice M. D. Faieta
Released: August 10, 2015