ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-501270
DATE: 20151020
BETWEEN:
1711811 ONTARIO LTD. and OLGA MARIA PAIVA, OPERATING AS ADLINE
Plaintiffs
– and –
BUCKLEY INSURANCE BROKERS LTD., ROBERT BUCKLEY, 1730849 ONTARIO LIMITED, CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWMARKET, LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, and IDA VALLENTINI
Defendants
Sara J. Erskine and Garett Schromm, for the Plaintiffs
J. Rosenstein, for the Defendants
S.A.Q. Akhtar J.
[1] The parties in this case share a laneway, the use of which has been the subject of some dispute. On 27 June 2014, that dispute crystallised into a motion brought before O’Marra J., who resolved the matter by ordering a formal arrangement by which the parties would enjoy shared use of the laneway. The order made had, as its purpose, a fair method of allowing both parties to access the loading doors of their respective businesses.
[2] On 9 June 2015, the plaintiffs moved to hold the defendants in contempt of court for violation of that order. As part of its relief sought, the plaintiff asked this court to vary the order to provide certain restrictions to a disputed easement and prevent use of a fire door except in the case of emergencies.
[3] The parties settled this motion after I briefly stood the matter down to allow resolution discussions to take place. In the event that agreement could not be reached, I was prepared to render judgment on the motion.
[4] Both parties managed to settle the matter in a manner that reflected, for the most part, the plaintiff’s wishes. The plaintiff now seeks costs of the motion on the basis that they were the successful party.
[5] The defendants, however, submit that because no finding of contempt was made, because of the parties successful efforts in resolving the matter, costs should be payable in the cause. In the alternative, they argue that no costs should be ordered as the dispute was one between neighbours who should be able to work out their own differences. The defendants further argue that, in any event, the plaintiffs were not the successful party in the motion and, that the order made was one of compromise.
[6] I reject the defendants’ position for two reasons. First, the plaintiff did succeed on the motion in the sense that their request for variation of O’Marra J.’s order was granted. Secondly, the submission that costs be paid in the cause, or not at all, misunderstands the nature of the motion which was not a dispute between the parties but an allegation that the defendant disobeyed a court order. Even though the matter was settled, it was resolved in a manner that reflected the defendants’ conduct and led to conditions sought by the plaintiffs. Those conditions were only obtained at the expense of bringing the contempt motion before the court.
[7] That being said, I find that I find the plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs to be unreasonably high. This was not a particularly complicated motion. The issues sought to be resolved did not require a great deal of resources or court time. As the plaintiffs themselves recognise, a substantial amount of the preparation for the motion will be duplicated when preparing for the trial of the main action.
[8] Cost awards are not the result of a mathematical exercise but a reflection of reasonableness. Overall, I am required to consider what is “fair and reasonable” in fixing costs, with a view to balance and compensation of the successful party but also with the goal of fostering access to justice: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario) (2004), 2004 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.).
[9] With that in mind, and utilising the guidance of the factors found in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, I order that costs be fixed in the amount of $11,000 all inclusive. Those costs are to be paid forthwith.
S.A.Q. Akhtar J.
Released: October 20, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-501270
DATE: 20151020
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
1711811 ONTARIO LTD. and OLGA MARIA PAIVA, OPERATING AS ADLINE
Plaintiffs
– and –
BUCKLEY INSURANCE BROKERS LTD., ROBERT BUCKLEY, 1730849 ONTARIO LIMITED, CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF NEWMARKET, LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY, and IDA VALLENTINI
Defendants
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
S.A.Q. Akhtar J.