SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 15-CV-528484
DATE: 20151023

RE: Thi Binh Nguyen, Plaintiff

AND:

Miller Thomson LLP and Gordon L. Robson, Defendants

BEFORE: Hood J.

COUNSEL:
Thi Binh Nguyen, appearing in person

Genevieve Durigon & Diana Romano Reid, for the Defendants

HEARD: September 1, 2015

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] In my reasons of September 11, 2015, I ordered the defendants’ submissions to be provided within 15 days of the 11th and the plaintiff’s within 15 days thereafter.

[2] I received the defendants’ submissions on September 23, 2015. The plaintiff’s submissions were therefore due on or before October 8, 2015. When nothing was forthcoming, the plaintiff was reminded of the deadline for submissions on October 13, 2015. On October 14, 2015, the plaintiff’s daughter advised that the plaintiff was appealing my decision of September 11th. Presumably that is why no submissions were forthcoming.

[3] On October 14, 2015, the plaintiff was reminded that regardless of her appeal, her costs submissions were required so that the order could be finalized. She was granted an extension to October 19, 2015. It was made clear that if no submissions were made by her, I would make my decision without them. It is now October 23, 2015 and no submissions have been received.

[4] Being successful on their motion, the defendants are entitled to costs. The defendants are asking for substantial indemnity costs of $10,758 and partial indemnity costs of $7,381, both inclusive of HST and disbursements.

[5] No argument has been made as to why substantial indemnity costs would be appropriate. I can see no basis why they would be.

[6] The fixing of costs is a discretionary decision under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act. That discretion is generally to be exercised in accordance with the factors listed in Rule 57.01 of the Rules. At the end of the day the court is to consider what is fair and reasonable in fixing costs, and is to do so while balancing compensation to the successful party and access to justice.

[7] The time sought by the defendant with respect to the preparation of the motion material seems somewhat excessive. The argument was fairly straightforward and the law in relation to Rule 21.01 is well-known. The hourly rate is reasonable.

[8] The fact that the plaintiff is acting for herself does not disentitle the defendants to costs. In all of the circumstances I consider $5,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements to be a reasonable and fair amount to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. This is to be paid within 30 days of today’s date.

Hood J.

Date: October 23, 2015