Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-15-124000-00 Motion Heard: April 27, 2016

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: 1440195 Ontario Inc. v. 1440194 Ontario Inc. and Antonio Simas

Before: Master R.A. Muir

Counsel: Jonathan Frustaglio for the Moving Parties/Defendants Darren Smith for the Responding Party/Plaintiff

Supplementary Reasons for Decision - Costs

[1] On April 27, 2016, I heard a motion brought by the defendants pursuant to Rule 25.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”) for an order that the plaintiff provide particulars of certain allegations found in numerous paragraphs of the statement of claim.

[2] I released my reasons for decision on April 29, 2016. I concluded that certain further particulars needed to be provided. I dismissed the defendants’ motion with respect to the balance of the particulars requested. I also requested written costs submissions. I have now received and considered the parties’ costs submissions.

[3] As a preliminary matter, I received a written request from the lawyer for the plaintiff seeking leave to file reply submissions after the deadline set out in my reasons of April 29, 2016. I also received a response to this request from the defendants’ lawyer.

[4] I am not prepared to accept such further submissions. This was a simple pleadings motion with divided success. The fixing of costs on a motion of this nature should not involve a lengthy and complex exercise. The court is required to adopt the simplest, least expensive and most expeditious process for fixing costs. See Rule 57.01(7).

[5] I have not considered the other commentary in the parties’ correspondence to the court in determining the costs issues on this motion.

[6] In my view, success on this motion was more or less evenly divided. Some requested particulars were ordered. Others were not. I am unable to conclude that one side was substantially more successful than the other.

[7] Some of the issues on this motion could have been avoided had the defendants served a request to inspect documents and narrowed their demand in some respects. Some of the issues could have been avoided had the plaintiff served a more detailed reply to the defendants’ demand for particulars. It became obvious during the course of argument that the plaintiff could have very easily supplied some of the particulars refused with reference to documents in its possession.

[8] Under these circumstances, the defendants’ offer to settle this motion on the basis of the plaintiff providing the particulars requested is not a factor in determining costs. In addition, I do not view the alleged improper conduct of either side as rising to the level that would justify an adverse costs order.

[9] For these reasons, I have concluded that it is fair and reasonable that there be no order for the costs of this motion.

Master R. A. Muir Date: June 3, 2016