SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 06-CV-310261PD2
DATE: 20151113

RE: RANJIT KUMAR CHANDRA, Plaintiff

AND:

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, CHRIS O’NEILL-YATES, CATHERINE MCISAACS, LYNN BURGESS, JACK STRAWBRIDGE and MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY OF NEWFOUNDLAND, Defendants

BEFORE: Mr. Justice Graeme Mew

COUNSEL:
Richard Bennett and Joseph Figliomeni, for the Plaintiff

Christine Lonsdale and Gillian Kerr, for the Defendants Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Chris O’Neill-Yates and Lynn Burgess

HEARD: 14 October 2015 (by telephone conference call)

costs ENDORSEMENT

[1] Dr. Ranjit Kumar Chandra sued the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and (ultimately) two of its employees, Chris O’Neill-Yates and Lynn Burgess (the “CBC Defendants”) for defamation and invasion of privacy. He sought $5,000,000 in general damages for libel, $1,000,000 for aggravated damages, punitive damages of $5,000,000, $1,000,000 in general damages for invasion of privacy and pecuniary damages in the amount of $125,000,000. A total of $137,000,000.

[2] After 56 days of trial, the jury concluded that the broadcast giving rise to the action was defamatory of Dr. Chandra given the natural and ordinary meaning of the words it contained. However, the jury accepted the defence of justification, finding that the words used in the broadcast were true. The jury also concluded that the CBC Defendants had not, either individually or collectively, intentional intruded, physically or otherwise, upon the seclusion of Dr. Chandra, his private affairs or concerns in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (in other words, the jury dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for invasion of privacy).

[3] The CBC Defendants seek costs, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, of $1,629,370.78.

[4] The plaintiff argues that there should be no order as to costs.

[5] The parties were given the opportunity to make both written and oral submissions on the issue of costs.

[6] The CBC Defendants provided a comprehensive bill of costs. The plaintiff thereafter requested and, ultimately, the CBC Defendants provided, redacted dockets and other supporting information. I pause to observe that requiring the production of dockets where costs are to be fixed by the court rather than assessed should be the exception rather than the rule. The fixing of costs should be a simpler, less expensive and more expeditious means of determining costs that an assessment by an assessment officer. These benefits of fixing costs would quickly be eroded if it became routine to require compete dockets or extensive supporting documentation. See for example Fernandes v Peel Educational & Tutorial Services Ltd, 2015 ONSC 3753, per Lemon J. at paras 39-41.

[7] Notwithstanding this, the plaintiff then took issue with the extent of some of the redactions. It was submitted by the plaintiff that I should receive unredacted copies of the dockets to determine the appropriateness of the redactions. I declined to do so, not only because there were more than 800 pages of invoices but, more importantly, because a significant portion of the costs claimed and, hence, the related invoices, pertained to the trial which I presided over and which the plaintiff participated in. The docket entries, redactions notwithstanding, are, in my view, sufficient to inform both the plaintiff and the court as to the nature of the services underlying the CBC Defendants’ claim for costs.

[8] Because of the volume of material provided by the CBC Defendants (in response to the plaintiff’s requests) shortly before the hearing, the parties were also permitted to make brief post-hearing written submissions.

[9] The plaintiff did not file a bill of costs. As Armstrong J.A. observed in Smith Estate v. Rotstein, 2011 ONCA 491, 106 O.R. (3d) 161 at para 50:

… there is no requirement for the losing party, who is not seeking costs, to file a bill of costs although it is preferable that he or she does so. However, if the losing party chooses not to file a bill of costs, this is a factor that the judge, who is assessing costs, may take into account when considering the reasonable expectations of the losing party.

(Decision continues exactly as in the source with all paragraphs preserved.)

...

[70] I therefore fix the substantial indemnity costs of the CBC Defendants at $1,383,412 for fees (which on this occasion corresponds with, but does not exceed, the full indemnity amount) and $230,588 for disbursements for a total of $1,614,000.

[71] These costs are payable forthwith.

Graeme Mew J.

Date: 13 November 2015