Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada
CITATION: Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONSC 1463
COURT FILE NO.: 10-CV-411183CP
DATE: 20160229
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ELDON FEHR, ANGELA WATTERS, GAETAN LAURIER, LESLIE MICHAEL LUCAS, JAMES PATRICK O’HARA, REBECCA JEAN CLARK, and LLOYD SHAUN CLARK
Plaintiffs
– and –
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
Defendant
COUNSEL:
Won J. Kim, for the Plaintiffs
F. Paul Morrison for the Defendant
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
HEARD: In writing
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
PERELL, J.
[1] The Plaintiffs brought a motion to have their action against Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (“Sun Life”) certified as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6. Sun Life resisted certification, and brought a cross-motion to have each of the Plaintiffs’ individual actions, which asserted negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract claims, dismissed as statute-barred under provincial limitation statutes. I released a decision, but before the formal Order was taken out, Sun Life brought a motion requesting that I amend paragraphs 374, 477, 478, 479 and 485 of my Reasons for Decision.
[2] On the motion, Sun Life submitted that the Reasons for Decision should be amended to reflect that the Plaintiffs’ breach of contract causes of action were statute-barred until May 2, 2011, and not only until 2008, as it was stated in the Reasons for Decision. I dismissed Sun Life’s motion. See Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONSC 455.
[3] Without submitting a Bill of Costs, the Plaintiffs request $20,000, all inclusive, for the costs of the motion.
[4] The Plaintiffs submit that they were totally successful on a discrete motion that was, they say, of great import to Sun Life, which apparently filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal about the matter of the running of the limitation periods.
[5] Sun Life submits that it cannot be faulted for preserving its appeal rights and that it sought to resolve the issue in the most expeditious way, initially having sought clarification of the Reasons for Decision at a case conference. Sun Life submits that the costs of the motion should be consistent with the underlying order for costs that I made in the certification and summary judgment motions, which was to reserve the matter of costs pending the resumption of the certification motion.
[6] In the alternative, Sun Life submits that the quantum of costs has not been justified and without a Bill of Costs having been delivered, the Plaintiffs’ request cannot be justified. Sun Life submits that that the Plaintiffs’ request for costs ought to be refused.
[7] In my opinion, there is no reason to treat Sun Life’s motion other than in the normal course. The matter was important to Sun Life, and it was not appropriate to deal with a significant amendment to my Reasons for Decision in an informal way and therefore I directed that the issue be dealt with by a formal motion.
[8] The matter of the running of the limitation period was not a matter to be dealt with at a case conference unlike several other requested corrections to the Reasons for Decision that were resolved on consent or without opposition.
[9] The Plaintiffs were successful on an important motion, and they should receive their reasonable costs for a motion of this nature.
[10] Neither party was particularly forthcoming in revealing how much time they spent preparing for the motion, which took less than an hour to argue.
[11] Having regard to the factums and the arguments made at the motion, I would assess the reasonable costs for the motion to be $7,500, all inclusive, payable to the Plaintiffs in any event of the cause but not forthwith.
[12] Order accordingly.
Perell, J.
Released: February 29, 2016
CITATION: Fehr v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 2016 ONSC 1463
COURT FILE NO.: 10-CV-411183CP
DATE: 20160229
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ELDON FEHR, ANGELA WATTERS, GAETAN LAURIER, LESLIE MICHAEL LUCAS, JAMES PATRICK O’HARA, REBECCA JEAN CLARK, and LLOYD SHAUN CLARK
Plaintiffs
‑ and ‑
SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA
Defendant
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
Perell, J.
Released: February 29, 2016