Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 14-61172 DATE: 2016/07/12 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DARREN SPROULE Plaintiff/Respondent on the Motion
– and –
TONY GRAHAM LEXUS TOYOTA; GRAHAM AUTOMOTIVES SALES INC.; TONY GRAHAM MOTORS (1980) LIMITED; TONY GRAHAM KANATA LIMITED; TONY GRAHAM MOTORS LIMITED, 1618507 ONTARIO LIMITED; 1180632 ONTARIO LIMITED; 1180633 ONTARIO LIMITED; 1514532 ONTARIO LIMITED; 1618508 ONTARIO LIMITED; MAUREEN GRAHAM and ELIZABETH GRAHAM Defendants/Moving Party
COUNSEL: Andrew B. Lister, Chantal Beaupré for the Plaintiff/Respondent on the Motion Jim Anstey, for the Defendants/Moving Party
HEARD: Written Argument
Decision on Costs
MARANGER J.
[1] This was a motion for a summary judgment by eight of the named defendants to have the claims dismissed by reason of there being no cause of action against them.
[2] The defendants were successful on the motion and the result achieved surpassed a rule 49 offer to resolve the motion served on the Plaintiff.
[3] The defendants are asking for an award of costs in the amount of $45,380.73.
[4] The plaintiffs argued that costs in the amount of $9,000 would be as reasonable in all the circumstances.
[5] I would fix costs in this case in the all-inclusive sum of $17,500 for the following reasons:
- I have considered the factors listed in rule 57.01(1) (oa), (ob), (c), (d) and (g).
- The rule 49 offer filed.
- The important principle stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Boucher v. Public Accountant Council for Ontario: that the overall objective is to fix what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay rather than be swayed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant.
- The bill of costs filed by the plaintiff as compared to what in my view was a relatively uncomplicated motion.
[6] The costs are payable forthwith.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert L. Maranger
Released: July 12, 2016