ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-110072
DATE: 20151021
BETWEEN:
Lucia Diceglie
Plaintiff
– and –
The Bank of Montreal, Vaughan Valley Property Management and The Corporation of the City of Vaughan
Defendants
Piera A. Segreto, for the Plaintiff
Ivana Bozinovic, for the Defendant, The Bank of Montreal
Michael Unea, for the Defendant, Vaughan Valley Property Management
Thomas Durcan, for the Defendant, The Corporation of the City of Vaughan
HEARD: October 15, 2015
FERGUSON J.:
[1] The defendant, the Corporation of the City of Vaughan (the “City of Vaughan”), seeks substantial indemnity fees of $21,731.03 and $4,197.86 for disbursements. Its partial indemnity costs are $15,212.11. These costs are being sought as a result of being brought into an action and not being released in a timely fashion when the necessary facts were known. Its position is supported by the co‑defendants.
[2] The City of Vaughan commenced a summary judgment motion because it is not the owner of the subject property (the “property”) where the slip and fall occurred. The Bank of Montreal (the Bank) is the owner of the subject property. The property was maintained by Vaughan Valley Property Management (VVPM). After the City of Vaughan served their initial materials for this motion, the parties agreed to a dismissal. The only issue that remains undecided is costs.
[3] Counsel for the plaintiff confirmed in a letter dated June 7, 2012 that the Bank owned the property. On June 28, 2012, counsel issued the statement of claim alleging that ownership of the property could not be determined. In its defence, VVPM admitted being responsible for the maintenance. The Bank admitted that it owned the property.
[4] Examinations for discovery took place in August of 2014.
[5] The City of Vaughan delivered a request to admit, including the fact that the Bank owned the property. Plaintiff’s counsel took a ridiculous position in her response, that ownership was unclear. Neither counsel for the co‑defendants responded so they were deemed to admit.
[6] On December 12, 2014, plaintiff’s counsel was granted a final opportunity to dismiss the City of Vaughan from the claim on a without costs basis. She did not agree, despite both the co‑defendants’ agreement to the dismissal.
[7] It was only after service of the summary judgment motion that her consent was obtained. Although initially counsel for the City of Vaughan was seeking an order of costs against plaintiff’s counsel personally, at the hearing of the motion he was content that I not deal with it in that way.
[8] It is clear that the City of Vaughan made significant efforts to clarify counsel’s issues. A summary judgment motion was completely unnecessary.
[9] In my view, it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to commence the claim and require attendance at the examinations for discovery. After that point it became unreasonable and she drove up costs. Fees must be reasonable and fair. I am awarding costs in the amount of $7,500, payable by the plaintiff to the City of Vaughan. The disbursements were, in my view, necessary and they are awarded in the amount of $4,167.86, payable by the plaintiff to the City of Vaughan.
Madam Justice J.E. Ferguson
Released: ** October 21, 2015**
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-110072
DATE: 20151021
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Lucia Diceglie
Plaintiff
– and –
The Bank of Montreal, Vaughan Valley Property Management and The Corporation of the City of Vaughan
Defendants
RULING ON COSTS
Madam Justice J.E. Ferguson
Released: October 21, 2015