ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-492401
DATE: 20151218
BETWEEN:
BEHROUZ SALEHI
Plaintiff
– and –
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO
Defendant
Self-represented and acting in person
Bernard C. LeBlanc and
Natasha S. Danson, for the Defendant
HEARD: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Diamond j.:
Overview
[1] On November 26, 2015, I released my Reasons for Decision granting a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendant Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”) and dismissing the plaintiff’s claim.
[2] In accordance with my request, I have now received and reviewed the cost submissions of both parties.
[3] PEO’s Bill of Costs totals the sum of $38,721.58 on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T. These costs also include the cost of the attendance before Justice Myers on June 20, 2014, who reserved the costs of that motion to the judge who ultimately determined the action. However, as success was divided before Justice Myers, PEO (properly, in my view) seeks its costs of the action fixed on a partial indemnity basis in the total sum of $35,000.00 to reflect, inter alia, this divided success.
[4] In response, the plaintiff takes issue with the number of hours charged by PEO’s solicitors, and characterizes my Reasons for Decision as “unfair”. There are obviously appeal routes available should the plaintiff wish to pursue this matter further.
[5] It is trite to state that costs generally follow the event. As held by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Boucher v. Public Accounts Council (Ontario) (2004) 2004 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3rd) 291 (C.A.), the Court is required to consider what is “fair and reasonable” in fixing costs with a view to balance of compensation of the successful party with a goal of fostering access to justice. .
[6] A review of the history of this action discloses that there were several steps undertaken by the plaintiff which, in my view, unnecessarily lengthened the duration of the proceeding. These steps included the plaintiff noting PEO in default prior to the hearing of PEO’s second motion to strike the action, and then appealing the decision of Master Pope setting aside that noting in default. While the costs of those unnecessary steps were effectively addressed by prior Court orders, they are nevertheless steps that I may take into account in exercising my discretion under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedures.
[7] I have review the fees and disbursements claimed in PEO’s Bill of Costs. With a few minor exceptions, I do not find the rates or hours charged by PEO’s lawyers to be excessive. In the circumstances of this case, I order the plaintiff to pay PEO its costs of the action (including PEO’s motion for summary judgment) fixed in the all-inclusive sum of $30,000.00.
Diamond J.
Released: December 18, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-492401
DATE: 20151126
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
BEHROUZ SALEHI
Plaintiff
– and –
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO
Defendant
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Diamond J.
Released: December 18, 2015