COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-2125-00
DATE: 2015-08-28
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
BOZIDAR MILETIC
Omer S. Chaudhry, for the Plaintiff
Plaintiff
- and -
GEORGE JAKSIC, (THE ESTATE OF) NADA JAKSIC, MICRO PRECISION MACHINING LIMITED AND JAMES WHEELER also known as JAMES S. B. WHEELER also known as JAMES STUART BOTHWELL WHEELER
Perry Cheung, for the Defendants George Jaksic, (The Estate of) Nada Jaksic, and Micro Precision Machining Limited
Jonathan Speigel, for the defendant James Wheeler
Defendants
Heard at Brampton on February 6, 2015
Price J.
Costs Endorsement
NATURE OF PROCEEDING
[1] On October 29, 2014, following a case conference on that date, the court issued an endorsement which set out a timetable for the parties to follow in the trial of this action. None of the parties followed the timetable. This resulted in correspondence between their counsel, and in a case conference taking place on February 6, 2015, instead of the pre-trial conference that the timetable had appointed for that date. Mr. Wheeler requests an order requiring Mr. Miletic to pay the costs that Mr. Miletic needlessly incurred as a result of those steps. This endorsement responds to that request.
BACKGROUND FACTS
[2] On April 24, 2014, the court heard a motion that the defendants, Mr. Jaksic and Mr. Wheeler, brought for summary judgment dismissing Mr. Miletic’s action for damages for fraud and negligence against them. Mr. Miletic’s action against Mr. Jaksic was for damages for fraud arising from a failed purchase of shares in Mr. Jaksic’s business. His action against Mr. Wheeler, the lawyer who had prepared the agreement of purchase and sale for Mr. Jaksic, was for damages for negligence.
[3] On August 28, 2014, the court released its decision dismissing the defendants’ motion, and directed that a pre-trial conference take place after October 1, 2014, to discuss the steps that needed to be taken to bring the action to trial. The pre-trial conference was convened on October 29, 2014, and resulted in an order that directed, in part, the following:
- The action shall proceed in accordance with the required that the action proceed in accordance with the following timetable:
a) The plaintiff shall, by November 30, 2014, deliver his amended Statement of Claim;
b) The defendants shall, by December 15, 2014, deliver their amended Statement of Defence;
c) The plaintiff shall, by December 15, 2014, produce all as-yet-unproduced documents listed in Schedule “A” of the affidavit of documents;
d) The parties shall conduct examinations for discovery by January 15, 2015;
e) Any motions arising from undertakings given or questions refused at examination for discovery shall be brought and heard by March 15, 2015;
f) The action shall be set down for trial by March 31, 2015;
g) The parties shall attend a pre-trial conference on February 6, 2015, at 2 p.m.;
h) The actions shall be tried at the blitz sittings of this court beginning May 11, 2015.
[4] Mr. Miletic failed to deliver his amended statement of claim by November 30, 2014, as the order required. This led to the following correspondence between counsel:
The law clerk for Mr. Wheeler’s lawyer, Jonathan Speigel, sent an e-mail to Mr. Miletic’s lawyer, Omer Chaudhry, and to Mr. Jaksic’s lawyer, Perry Cheung, on November 17, 2014, at 11:10 a.m., asking whether their respective clients were available on the week of January 5, 2014 [sic] for examinations for discovery, which Mr. Speigel believed could be completed in a day.
Mr. Cheung replied by e-mail on the following day, at 12:17 p.m., stating that they could discuss scheduling examinations after they had received amended pleadings from the plaintiff, until which “we can’t comment on the appropriateness of your proposed timing.”
On November 24, 2014, at 10:32 a.m., Mr. Speigel sent an e-mail to Mr. Cheung and to Mr. Anser Farooq, the senior lawyer at Anser Law, which represented Mr. Miletic, noting that Mr. Cheung had not returned his call and that Mr. Farooq had not replied to his e-mail. He pointed out that setting of a date for discoveries within the period required by the court’s order was not dependent upon the amended pleadings. He stated that if he did not have their cooperation by November 26, 2014, he would deliver notices of examination for a date that he would choose without their input.
Mr. Farooq replied on November 24, 2014, at 3:49 p.m., explaining that he had been in trial the previous week and that he wasn’t sure what e-mail Mr. Speigel was referring to, or why Mr. Speigel’s assistant had not telephoned his office staff. He stated that Mr. Speigel could have his associate contact his student, his office staff, or his associate, Mr. Chaudhry, to schedule a matter, and added: “Please note the month of January I am fully committed for trials.” [Emphasis added]
Mr. Speigel sent a further e-mail to Mr. Farooq at 3:53 p.m., stating, “It does not much matter whether you are committed to trials in January. The discoveries are, by order, to be completed by January 15, 2015. If you are dealing with this matter, we will deal with you. If Mr. Chaudhry is to be dealing with this matter, we will deal with him. Who is dealing with the matter? Who will be attending the examinations for discovery?”
On November 24, 2014, at 4:13 p.m., Mr. Chaudhry, a junior lawyer in Mr. Farooq’s firm (called to the Bar in 2013), sent a further e-mail to Mr. Speigel and Mr. Cheung, asking for their available dates and saying that he would follow up shortly with dates when his firm and their client were available. However, he never did so.
Mr. Chaudhry then added: “Mr. Speigel, you are well aware that I am on this file as we met in Court. If you did not receive a response to the email sent by your office then it would have been prudent to send a letter via fax or at least call my office. Emails with the tone that is found in your previous email hardly help to move things along.” Although Mr. Chaudhry did not explicitly indicate who would be attending the examinations for discovery, I find that the clear implication of his e-mail was that he, and not Mr. Farooq, would be attending, with the result that Mr. Farooq’s commitments to trials in January did not create an impediment to the examinations taking place then.
Still later on November 24, 2014, at 6:29 p.m., Mr. Farooq, who I note was called to the Bar in Ontario in 2002, and had been practicing law for 12 years, sent a further e-mail to Mr. Speigel, who was called to the Bar in 1976, and had been practicing for 39 years. He stated, “Thank you for teaching me what an order is. I look forward to learning much more from you in the future, especially at trial.” He asked Mr. Speigel to provide his dates to Mr. Farooq’s staff and stated that they would “provide our matching availability.” He then added, “Kindly do not waste my time with meaningless e-mails and if a matter requires attention send a letter.” [Emphasis added]
On November 5, 2014, Mr. Speigel’s law clerk sent an email to Mr. Chaudhry and Mr. Farooq, and to Mr. Cheung and his law clerk, stating that Mr. Speigel and Mr. Wheeler were available on any day during the week of January 5, 2014 [sic].
On December 1, 2014, Mr. Chaudhry sent a further e-mail to his employer, Mr. Farooq, and to Mr. Speigel and Mr. Cheung, stating “It seems that I will need a day or two more to send you the final Amended Statement of Claim. Please call me to discuss the delay if necessary.” [Emphasis added] This was two days after the deadline imposed by the court’s October 29, 2014, order for delivery of the Amended Claim.
On December 3, 2014, Mr. Speigel wrote to Mr. Chaudhry and to Mr. Cheung, noting that it was three days past the deadline imposed by the court’s order. He added, “Your delay is not acceptable.”
On December 3, 2014, Mr. Chaudhry sent a draft amended statement of claim to Mr. Speigel and Mr. Cheung. The amended claim was not filed for a further two and a half months, until after the pre-trial conference that had been scheduled to take place on February 6, 2015.
On December 5, 2014, Mr. Speigel wrote to Mr. Chaudhry and Mr. Cheung, stating, “Dates are starting to go and I have still not heard from either of you. I am now available on January 5, 6, 8, and 9. If I have no dates by the end of December 8, 2014, I will set the date unilaterally. If there are subsequent problems, I will let you explain them to Justice Price.”
On December 8, 2014, Mr. Speigel sent a further e-mail to Mr. Chaudhry and Mr. Cheung. He stated that, in his attempt to achieve the discovery date set out in the Order dated October 29, 2014, he saw further problems. He noted that:
a) A statement of claim is not amended by sending a draft, but must be endorsed by the court either after court order or by consent. He stated, in that regard, that he consented to the amendment on behalf of Mr. Wheeler, but that the amendment of the issued claim still had to be made. He stated that he could not deliver an amended statement of defence because the amended claim had not been taken out and could still be changed at any time. In any event, if he served an amended statement of defence and tried to file it, the court would not accept it.
b) He needed copies of the documents, as required by the court’s order dated October 29, 2014, by December 15th, and that he would not be able to review them if they were delivered later because he would be on holidays, and would then be unable to conduct discoveries in the first week of January. He added that he had previously indicated that the documents should be scanned rather than copied with the scanned documents numbered on their face in accordance with the affidavit of documents.
Mr. Chaudhry replied later by e-mail sent on December 8, 2014, at 11:26 a.m., asking Mr. Speigel and Mr. Cheung to keep January 5 and January 9 free. He stated that he preferred to examine “your client” on January 5, 2014, and would let them know if he could make his client available on the same day as well.
Sometime in the following month, Mr. Cheung apparently advised Mr. Speigel and Mr. Chaudhry that his client, Mr. Jaksic, was travelling and would be unavailable for the next 2 or 3 months other than by video-conferencing.
On January 5, 2015, Mr. Speigel sent a further e-mail to Mr. Chaudhry and Mr. Cheung, describing “where we seem to be”:
a) With regard to discoveries, he noted that Mr. Chaudhry was doubtful that videoconferencing would work, given the personalities involved, and was to get back to Mr. Speigel and Mr. Cheung regarding his final position, but had not done so.
b) Mr. Speigel still had not received the amended statement of claim and until he received it, could not deliver his amended statement of defence and crossclaim. They could not have discoveries until pleadings were closed.
c) He noted 7 documents listed in Mr. Miletic’s affidavit of documents that the timetable required by December 15, 2014, were still missing, as of January 5, from the electronic documents he had received from Mr. Chaudhry.
Mr. Chaudhry sent an e-mail to Mr. Speigel and Mr. Cheung on January 6, 2015, at 10:15, stating that they had received an amended Statement of Claim, which still needed to be filed, and had been advised that he would not be making changes to it “at this time”. He continued, “As stated earlier, there is no reason as to why amended defences have not been at least served at this time and consequently why I do not have affidavit of documents from your clients.” He asked Mr. Speigel and Mr. Cheung to serve their defences and affidavits of documents immediately and said that he would be bringing a consent motion “soon” to have his amended claim filed.
On January 26, 2015, Mr. Chaudhry faxed a letter to Mr. Cheung and Mr. Speigel stating,
Once Mr. Cheung can clearly indicate when his client is returning to the province we can schedule examinations. Mr. Cheung’s client was not easy to examine for various reasons and required the help of counsel on many occasions. Mr. Jaksic is not an appropriate candidate for video conferencing and hence I wish to examine him in person.
On January 27, 2015, Mr. Speigel sent an e-mail to Mr. Chaudhry, with a copy to Mr. Cheung, commenting on Mr. Chaudhry’s e-mail to my assistant and his e-mail to Mr. Speigel and Mr. Cheung. He noted that Mr. Chaudhry had failed to clear the letter that he proposed to write to me, as the rules require (although, as it happened, they would not have objected to the letter). Mr. Speigel additionally noted that Mr. Chaudhry’s letter regarding the timetable seemed to assume that counsel could simply ignore a judge’s endorsement and proceed with any timetable they wished. Mr. Speigel pointed out that this was not correct, and that the timetable had slipped because of Mr. Chaudhry’s failure to amend the statement of claim, with the result that the examinations could not take place. It was now almost 2 months after the deadline to amend the claim, and Mr. Chaudhry was just beginning to obtain the order granting him leave to do so. He now doubted that the claim would be amended before mid-February.
Mr. Cheung sent an e-mail to Mr. Speigel and Mr. Chaudhry on January 29, 2015, at 11:34 a.m., asking him to let them know his thoughts on writing to me to request an order to amend pleadings and a new timetable. He stated that he did not see any point in attending a pre-trial the following week. Mr. Speigel replied at 11:54 a.m., stating that he would prefer writing for a case conference, preferably by telephone.
On January 30, 2015, at 11:09 a.m., Mr. Chaudhry wrote to Mr. Cheung and Mr. Speigel clarifying that he was not suggesting that they ignore the order and adding that he was asking for a timetable in order to have one ready when the pre-trial took place. He stated that he was waiting for the consent from Mr. Cheung to sign a formal consent on his behalf, and added that he did not mind attending the pre-trial alone if he had the other counsels’ consent, and that he was not adverse [sic] to cancelling the pre-trial conference but preferred to make use of it to get a timetable endorsed, if possible.
Mr. Chaudhry added that he would be bringing a motion to enter the amended statement of claim, for which he already had consent from both counsel. He concluded, “We should also agree to a new timetable as soon as we have some dates from Mr. Cheung.”
On February 2, 2015, at 10:06 a.m., Mr. Speigel sent an e-mail to Mr. Chaudhry and Mr. Cheung repeating what he had told them on January 27, 2015, that they would need to obtain an order for a new timetable from me or another judge. He suggested that Mr. Chaudhry write a letter to me suggesting a telephone case conference to discuss the timetable. He noted that Mr. Chaudhry had not yet delivered his amended statement of claim and had only provided a draft amended claim on December 3, 2014. He noted that until a week before February 2, Mr. Chaudhry had not begun the process to obtain an order granting leave to amend the statement of claim, and that the defendants, who were required to deliver their amended statement of defence by December 15, 2014, could not do so without first being served with an amended claim. Mr. Speigel further noted that “When I attempted to set dates for discovery, assuming that you were going to comply with the order for the delivery of the amended statement of claim, I was met with indifference and, sometimes, downright hostility.” Finally he noted that 7 documents listed in Mr. Miletic’s affidavit of documents were still missing from the electronic documents his counsel had provided.
On February 2, 2015, at 11:44 a.m., Mr. Speigel sent an e-mail to Mr. Chaudhry and Mr. Cheung, asking if he could serve a short pre-trial memorandum attaching some of their correspondence.
On February 2, 2015, at 4:20 p.m., Mr. Chaudhry sent an e-mail to Mr. Speigel and Mr. Cheung. He did not respond to Mr. Speigel’s request, and instead advised the two lawyers that an emergency had come up at his office and that he would send the draft timetable the following day. He said that he was going to apply the same timelines that I had in my endorsement but simply move the dates up, “to comply with May 11, 2015”. He asked if the other two lawyers were agreeable to his attending the pretrial alone to have a consent timetable endorsed.
On February 2, 2015, at 4:27 p.m., Mr. Speigel replied that he did not agree, and pointed out that counsel could not simply decide among themselves to ignore a pre-trial date. He added that this was why he had wanted Mr. Chaudhry to work it out in advance through me, which he had chosen not to do.
On February 2, 2015, at 6:37 p.m., Mr. Chaudhry sent the following letter to Mr. Speigel, with a copy to Mr. Cheung:
I wish to send the following letter to Justice Price:
We are jointly agreeable to a new timetable for this action (same is annexed). Due to the timetable not envisioning the filing of the Amended Statement of Claim and Mr. Jaksic travelling until May 11, 2015, it has become necessary to amend the timetable. Due to the change required to the timetable, the pre-trial scheduled for February 6, 2015, is premature and hence counsel recommend that the pretrial date for this Friday should be vacated. If your honour has no objection I will file a consent to amend the timetable. Since your honour is seized of this matter, I require clarification in regards to whether I should file a basket motion or should appear in front of your honour to amend the timetable. Your honour please advise when you would prefer to have a pre-trial.
Mr. Chaudhry followed this with a recommended timetable, beginning with the Amended Statement of Claim being entered, and ending with a trial at the November 2015 blitz trial sitting.
- On February 2, 2015, at 8:02 p.m., Mr. Speigel sent an e-mail to Mr. Chaudhry, informing him that his proposed letter was not acceptable. He continued, “If you wish to send a letter it will merely say:
We have not been able to achieve the timetable that you ordered and, accordingly, the pre-trial scheduled for February 6, 2015, will be of no value. We would appreciate if, before the pre-trial, we could have a 15-minute conference call with you to discuss why we did not meet the timetable, whether there should be any sanctions, and a new timetable. In anticipation of the conference call, we would provide you with some email strings to give context to the problems we encountered.
On February 3, 2015, at 10:21 a.m., Mr. Chaudhry sent a reply e-mail to Mr. Speigel and to Mr. Cheung stating, “No, this is creating problems without need for same. If you feel sanctions are appropriate then you should bring a motion. Are you refusing to consent to a new timetable?” [Emphasis added]
Mr. Chaudhry then offered an alternative wording for the proposed letter to me, suggesting:
We have not been able to achieve the timetable that you ordered and, accordingly, the pre-trial scheduled for February 6, 2015 will be of little value. If your honour thinks it necessary counsel will make themselves available via phone before the pretrial in anticipation of the conference call. Counsel have agreed to a consent timetable but if your honour thinks it necessary counsel can provide you with some email strings to give context to the problems we encountered.
Mr. Chaudhry concluded, “In my limited experience judges are busy people who do not appreciate counsel coming to them with their problems.”
Mr. Speigel sent an e-mail to Mr. Chaudhry on February 3, 2015, at 11:08 a.m. He stated that he would not consent to a timetable after seeing how the previous one was ignored, and that he preferred to discuss the matter with me.
Mr. Chaudhry sent a further e-mail to Mr. Speigel on February 3, 2015, at 11:48 a.m., noting that he was asking the timetable to be turned into an Order and adding that if that was not acceptable, it would seem that the pre-trial was necessary, and asked Mr. Speigel what he was suggesting should happen.
Mr. Speigel sent an e-mail to Mr. Chaudhry on February 3, 2015, at 11:52 a.m. stating, simply, “Send the letter I drafted to Justice Price.”
[5] A case conference ensued before me on February 6, 2015, in place of the pre-trial conference that was directed by my order dated October 29, 2014. Following the case conference, I issued an endorsement with a new timetable, and indicated that if the parties were unable to agree on the costs of the conference, they could submit written argument, which they later did.
[6] Mr. Chaudhry complains that Mr. Speigel replied to his submissions, for which leave was not granted, and asks for leave to deliver a surrebuttal. I am exercising my discretion to allow the reply, but not a surrebuttal. The reply did not add anything material to my decision on costs, and Mr. Speigel did not include the costs of its preparation in the time for which Mr. Wheeler seeks payment from Mr. Miletic.
ANALYSIS
[7] The e-mails that passed between counsel, the authenticity and content of which are not disputed, disclose that the timetable was not followed, principally because Mr. Miletic failed to deliver his amended statement of claim, meaning, as provided in rule 1.03,[^1] to serve and file the document, by November 30, 2014, as required. Instead, he served a draft amended claim on December 3, 2014, and sought to insist that the defendants deliver their amended statements of defence and attend for discoveries without the amended claim having been filed.
[8] Mr. Chaudhry and Mr. Speigel each blames the other for the unnecessary steps that were taken. The events described above clearly disclose that it was Mr. Miletic and his counsel who caused the delay by failing to serve and file Mr. Miletic’s amended statement of claim within the time required by my order dated October 29, 2015. Mr. Wheeler is therefore entitled to his wasted costs.
[9] Mr. Farooq was uncivil in his response to Mr. Speigel, who was a considerably more seasoned counsel than Mr. Farooq or his associate, Mr. Chaudhry, and who was entitled to respectful communication from him. When Mr. Speigel referred, in his submissions, to Mr. Chaudhry’s e-mail dated November 24, 2014, in which he had stated, “Thank you for teaching me what an order is. I look forward to learning much more from you in the future, especially at trial.” He then added, “Kindly do not waste my time with meaningless e-mails and if a matter requires attention send a letter,” Mr. Chaudhry responded in the following manner in in his costs submissions:
Mr. Speigel complains about the volume of correspondence required to date and yet when he complains about uncivil behaviour he points to a single solitary email and fails to inform the Court that almost all of the correspondence took place between myself and him. It was Mr. Speigel’s rude email that lead [sic] to a strong response from Mr. Farooq. Mr. Speigel then followed up by saying that the email was actually meant for Mr. Cheung’s office. If Mr. Speigel truly feels that the conduct was counsel [sic] was inappropriate then that is a matter better dealt with by the Law Society. [Emphasis added]
[10] I do not agree with Mr. Chaudhry’s position that Mr. Farooq’s response was provoked by rudeness from Mr. Speigel. Mr. Speigel correctly stated that Mr. Farooq’s other trial commitments did not justify his disregarding the timetable that the court had imposed, especially when he had an associate to whom he had given carriage of the file, and when neither he nor the associate had provided dates when they would be available to attend the examinations.
[11] I also do not agree with Mr. Chaudhry’s suggestion that Mr. Farooq’s uncivil conduct is a matter better dealt with by the Law Society than by the court in an assessment of costs. Justice Healey, in Catford v. Catford, in 2014, stated:
Since Young was decided, there has been cause for renewed focus in the legal profession on civility and professionalism. In his Civil Justice Review Project: Summary of Finding and Recommendations, former Justice Coulter A. Osborne noted at p. 118 that LawPRO had been advocating that lawyers behave in civil manner in order to avoid Rule 57.07 claims for costs, noting that such claims had been on the rise in the three years prior to the release of his report in 2007. He also noted that cost orders may “have a considerable therapeutic effect” on uncivil conduct in those relatively rare cases where the court concludes that the solicitor personally pay the costs. Yet I am mindful that the purpose of Rule 57.07(1) is to protect and compensate a party who has been subjected to costs without reasonable cause, and not to punish a lawyer: Young, supra, at p. 135; Galganov, supra at para. 14. Nonetheless, this case illustrates how incivility and unprofessionalism, where it plays a role in wasting costs, can have a direct effect on the pockets of a lawyer.[^2]
[12] I find that the attitude that both Mr. Farooq and Mr. Chaudhry displayed toward Mr. Speigel, in not acknowledging their own obligations to the court and in rebuking Mr. Speigel when he tried to remind them of those obligations, contributed to the unnecessary correspondence, the avoidable case conference, the delay of the proceeding for at least six months, and the wasted costs that Mr. Wheeler incurred.
[13] Mr. Chaudhry, in his submissions, has not disputed the amount of time that Mr. Speigel has set out in his Costs Outline, or the hourly rates he applied to that time. Mr. Chaudhry, additionally, has not filed a Costs Outline of his own and accordingly, should not be heard to complain that the time spent on Mr. Wheeler’s behalf was excessive.[^3]
[14] I accept Mr. Speigel’s submissions, upon which I base the amount I am fixing as costs. Mr. Speigel spent 11.8 hours on this matter, all of it unnecessary, but for Mr. Miletic’s delay, from November 14, 2014, to February 9, 2015. He claims an hourly rate of $350, which is less than the hourly rate of $409.16 which he is entitled to claim, on a partial indemnity scale, according to the Costs Bulletin, adjusted for inflation. I adopt, in this regard, the comments I made on hourly rates in my costs endorsement arising from the motion by Mr. Jaksic and Mr. Wheeler for summary judgment.[^4]
[15] It is unclear whether Mr. Miletic’s delay from October 29 to December 3, 2014, in serving his amended claim, and his further delay from December 3 to February 6, 2015, in filing it with the court, resulted from counsel’s error, or from counsel’s inability to secure the necessary approval from his client to do so. There is a reference, in the attachments to the costs submissions, to the fact that Mr. Miletic was travelling during a portion of the time from October 29, 2014, to February 6, 2015, but it is not clear when he was traveling, whether this prevented his lawyers from securing his instructions, and whether this contributed to their delay in delivering his amended statement of claim.
[16] I will give Mr. Miletic and his lawyers the opportunity, as provided for by rule 57.07, to file further evidence on this issue, and, if they are unable to agree, to appear before me to make submissions as to whether they should be required to pay some or all of Mr. Wheeler’s costs personally and, if so, how the costs should be apportioned between them.
[17] For the above reasons, it is ordered that:
Mr. Wheeler shall be paid his wasted costs of the Case Conference on February 6, 2015, in an amount which I fix at $4,909.85.
Mr. Chaudhry shall forthwith serve these reasons on Mr. Farooq and his client, and advise Mr. Miletic to seek independent legal advice in connection with the issue raised, and file proof that he has done so.
Unless Mr. Farooq and Mr. Chaudhry and their client agree in writing before that date as to which of them should pay these costs, they shall attend before me on September 28, 2015, at 9 a.m., to make submissions on this issue.
Price J.
DATE: August 28, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-2125-00
DATE: 2015-08-28
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
BOZIDAR MILETIC
Plaintiff
- and -
GEORGE JAKSIC, (THE ESTATE OF) NADA JAKSIC, MICRO PRECISION MACHINING LIMITED AND JAMES WHEELER also known as JAMES S. B. WHEELER also known as JAMES STUART BOTHWELL WHEELER
Defendants
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Price J.
Released: August 28, 2015
[^1]: Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rule 1.03
[^2]: Catford v. Catford, 2014 ONSC 133 at paras. 14-15.
[^3]: Risorto v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2003), 2003 43566 (ON SC), 64 O.R. (3d) 135 at para. 10 (S.C.), Winkler J., cited in Springer v. Aird & Berlins LLP (2009), 2009 26608 (ON SC), 74 C.C.E.L.(3d) 243 at paras. 12-17 (Ont. S.C.).
[^4]: Miletic v. Jaksic et al, 2015 ONSC 1400, at paras. 15 to 20.