Court File and Parties
CITATION: Muntean v. Enablence Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 1521
OTTAWA COURT FILE NO.: 15-63237
DATE: 2016-03-02
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ROBERT MUNTEAN Plaintiff
– and –
ENABLENCE CANADA INC. Defendant
Counsel:
D. Bruce Sevigny, for the Plaintiff
Stefan Kimpton, for the Defendant
HEARD: In writing
COSTS DECISION
T.D.RAY, J
[1] I granted summary judgement in favour of the plaintiff in this Rule 76 action for damages for wrongful dismissal in an amount equal to a little over two month’s salary. The plaintiff’s salary at the time was $68,000. The parties appear to have worked out the amount without my assistance at $13,076.92, but they made written costs submissions.
[2] In my decision (2016 ONSC 923) on the question of costs, I noted as follows:
I note the massive quantities of briefs, transcripts, and authorities that were before me, and remind counsel this was a simplified rules case which permitted the issues to be resolved without undue delay and without undue cost. The principle of proportionality comes to mind since the plaintiff was seeking damages of $37,000, having abandoned his $50,000 claim for punitive damages. I note parenthetically that there was absolutely no evidence to support a punitive damages claim. The parties filed costs outlines as required in the rules. The plaintiff quantifies his costs at between $20,702.31 for partial indemnity, and $35,550.51 for substantial indemnity. The defendant quantifies his costs at between $14,457.61 and $21,069.97.
[3] The plaintiff’s position is that he is entitled to costs in the amount of $20,702.31 on the ground that the proceedings had been managed in an efficient manner with examination for discovery of the defendant having occupied an hour; and the motion for summary judgement, two hours. He denied that a time limited written offer by the defendant ($20,000 inclusive of costs) dated July 21, 2015, which was claimed to exceed the amount of the judgement should deprive him of his costs. The defendant’s position is that the plaintiff should be awarded no costs since his recovery fell within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction as provided in rule 57.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
[4] I am not prepared to exercise my discretion under rule 57.05(1) and order no costs. The proceedings were commenced at a time when it included a $15,000 claim for vacation pay. While this was settled during the proceedings, it was certainly reasonable for the plaintiff to commence this as a simplified rules action. On the other hand, once the vacation pay issue was resolved, the landscape changed and proportionality became a significant feature.
[5] It is noted that the plaintiff lost on his main argument that the employment agreement was to be enforced. As a consequence, he recovered less than half of what he had been looking for. The $50,000 punitive damage claim was not abandoned until the opening of trial. The defendant was the successful party on that portion of the claim. In fact, leaving aside the settled vacation pay issue, the defendant was the more successful party overall.
[6] Having noted the amounts of the costs from the costs outlines, and having regard to the amount recovered, the relative success of the parties, the written offer made by the defendant, the lack of complexity of the action, and the overarching principle of proportionality, the plaintiff is entitled to his costs fixed at $5,000 all inclusive.
Honourable Justice Timothy Ray
Released: March 2, 2016
CITATION: Muntean v. Enablence Canada Inc., 2016 ONSC 1521
OTTAWA COURT FILE NO.: 15-63237
DATE: 2016-03-02
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ROBERT MUNTEAN Plaintiff
– and –
ENABLENCE CANADA INC. Defendant
costs decision
Honourable Justice Timothy Ray
Released: March 2, 2016