OSHAWA

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-75613

DATE: 20150807

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

B.C.R. CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED

Plaintiff

– and –

WILLEM TERLOUW and PRIMARY DEVELOPMENTS

Defendants

AND BETWEEN:

PRIMARY DEVELOPMENTS

Plaintiff by Counterclaim

– and –

B.C.R. CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED, BRUCE CHARLES RONDEAU, BRUCE RONDEAU and NANCY RONDEAU

Defendants by Counterclaim

Joseph Villeneuve, for the Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim, B.C.R. Construction Incorporated, Bruce Charles Rondeau and Bruce Rondeau

Mark A. Ross, for the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

HEARD: by written submissions from Mark A. Ross, for the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim only

RULING ON COSTS

DOUGLAS J.

[1] This is my Ruling on costs following my Reasons for Decision dated June 22, 2015 on the motion by the Defendants, Plaintiffs by Counterclaim (the “Moving Party”) in relation to undertakings and security for costs.

[2] I invited written submissions from the parties both on the form of security for costs and on the issue of costs of the motion. I have received submissions from both parties on costs but only from the Moving Party on the forum of security for costs.

[3] The Moving Party seeks costs of $10,190.80 (inclusive of HST and disbursements) on a partial indemnity basis. The Plaintiff B.C.R. Construction (the “Responding Party”) seeks no costs on the motion but $350 for review of the Moving Party’s submissions and preparation of its own.

[4] On the issue of the undertakings, I ordered that some undertakings be answered, some had been satisfied following service of the motion and one was abandoned by the Moving Party given the undertakings conditional nature.

[5] I also directed that the Plaintiff provide security for costs, although in an amount representing roughly half of that originally sought.

[6] Therefore the Moving Party was successful upon its motion but the result scaled back from its original expectations; thus a degree of success was enjoyed by the Responding Party.

[7] The Moving Party submits that the Responding Party was aggressive in its approach to the motion and submits email from opposing counsel in support of this position. The Responding Party replies with its own assertion of unreasonable conduct on the part of the Moving Party. The effect upon my assessment of costs is neutral.

[8] This motion was not complex. This proceeding is under the Simplified Procedure and parties are expected to proceed with restraint in relation to costly procedures. While the Moving Party was successful on balance, the result was diminished from that originally sought.

[9] I have reviewed the factors outlined in rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and conclude that the costs to the Moving Party in the amount of $6,000 plus HST are reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

[10] Therefore, the Plaintiff shall forthwith pay to the Defendants the sum of $6,000 plus HST in costs within 30 days.

[11] As to the form of security for costs, again, I only have submissions from the Moving Party. In this regard it is submitted that B.C.R. should post the security with the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice. Therefore, I order that B.C.R. Construction Incorporated forthwith post security for costs in the amount of $14,000 by deposit of same to the credit of this proceeding with the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice.

DOUGLAS J.

Released: August 7, 2015