ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-513910
DATE: 20151104
BETWEEN:
SONGYUAN LIU
Plaintiff
– and –
DR. STEPHEN SIK-HONG WONG and
THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO
Defendants
Self-represented and acting in person
Stephen W. Ronan, for the defendant
Dr. Stephen Sik-Hong Wong
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
diamond j.:
[1] On October 26, 2015, I released my Endorsement granting a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendant Dr. Stephen Sik-Hong Wong (“Dr. Wong”). At the conclusion of that Endorsement, I granted the plaintiff 10 business days to serve and file costs submissions in response to Dr. Wong’s request for payment of both costs of the motion, and costs of the action (having been dismissed by way of summary judgment).
[2] I have now received and reviewed the plaintiff’s responding costs submissions, and a brief letter delivered by counsel for Dr. Wong. As set out in my original Endorsement, Dr. Wong seeks costs of his successful motion on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $6,437.70. Dr. Wong also seeks costs of the action (i.e. the fees incurred up to his successful motion for summary judgment) in the all-inclusive amount of $7,238.08, including disbursements totaling $l,603.56. The bulk of these disbursements appear to be related to transcripts from examinations for discovery.
[3] In response, the plaintiff advances a series of “one sentence” arguments without any evidence to support such positions. As an example, the plaintiff argues that “with ample evidence, he had a strong chance to be successful”. As a result of this action not being commenced in accordance with the provisions of the Limitations Act 2002, I granted summary judgment dismissing the action. I did not undertake any detailed review of the merits of the plaintiff’s claims against Dr. Wong as same was not necessary or relevant. The same is true at this stage.
[4] The plaintiff submits that he should not be ordered to pay any costs to Dr. Wong, and that Dr. Wong should pay the plaintiff for his expenses incurred in responding to Dr. Wong’s motion. It is trite to state that costs normally follow the event, and I see no reason to depart from that rule in the circumstances of this case.
[5] Overall, the Court is required to consider what is “fair and reasonable” in fixing costs with a view to balancing compensation of a successful party with a goal of fostering access of justice: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario) (2004), 2004 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.).
[6] Pursuant to Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may consider the following factors when exercising its discretion to award costs:
(0.a) the principle of indemnity, including, where applicable, the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged and the hours spent by that lawyer;
(0.b) the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;
(a) the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;
(b) the apportionment of liability;
(c) the complexity of the proceeding;
(d) the importance of the issues;
(e) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;
(f) whether any step in the proceeding was,
(i) improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or
(ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;
(g) a party’s denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted;
(h) whether it is appropriate to award any costs or more than one set of costs where a party,
(i) commenced separate proceedings for claims that should have been made in one proceeding, or
(ii) in defending a proceeding separated unnecessarily from another party in the same interest or defended by a different lawyer; and
(i) any other matter relevant to the question of costs.
[7] I have reviewed Dr. Wong’s Costs Outline and Bill of Costs. I did not find the rates or hours charged by Dr. Wong’s lawyers to be excessive. I believe the amount sought by Dr. Wong for both costs of the motion and of the action to be fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
[8] I therefore order the plaintiff to pay Dr. Wong his costs of the motion fixed in the all-inclusive amount of $6,437.70 and costs of the action fixed in the all-inclusive amount of $7,238.08.
Diamond J.
Released: November 4, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-513910
DATE: 20151104
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
SONGYUAN LIU
Plaintiff
– and –
DR. STEPHEN SIK-HONG WONG and
THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO
Defendants
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Diamond J.
Released: November 4, 2015