Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-501673 MOTIONS HEARD: JUNE 28, 2016

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Sue DeGrandis and Barry DeGrandis v. 1123951 Ontario Limited c/o Libero Building Services

BEFORE: MASTER R. A. MUIR

COUNSEL: Paul Adam for the plaintiffs Robert J. Kennaley for defendant

SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS

[1] This costs decision is in relation to motions brought by both sides seeking similar relief. The plaintiffs and the defendant requested orders relating to the attendance of a non-party at discovery and for the service of further and better affidavits of documents.

[2] The motions were argued on June 28, 2016. On June 29, 2016 I released my reasons for decision. I dismissed the production motions and made an order with respect to the attendance of the non-party at the examinations for discovery. I also requested written costs submissions. I have now received and considered those submissions.

[3] Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”) allows the court, when determining costs, to consider the result on a motion and any offer to settle. This Rule includes a non-exhaustive list of factors the court may also consider when awarding costs. Rule 1.04(1.1) is a particularly important consideration on these motions. It requires the court in applying the Rules to make orders that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues and to the amount involved in the proceeding. These are the factors I have considered in determining the costs issues on these motions.

[4] In my view, there should be no order for the costs of these motions.

[5] For the same reasons set out in my June 29, 2016 reasons for decision, it is my view that the time and money spent on these motions was not proportional to the amounts in issue.

[6] With respect to the production issues, the defendant was the successful party. The order I made for the production of key documents was consistent with the defendant’s approach to the motion and its offer to settle.

[7] However, the plaintiffs were the successful party on the non-party attendance issue. I made an order limiting the role of the non-party at the examinations. The non-party’s attendance was also something that should have been raised and discussed by counsel long before the day of the examinations. The defendant’s failure to do so resulted in costs thrown away.

[8] For these reasons, it is my view that neither side was significantly more successful than the other. It is therefore fair and reasonable that there be no order for the costs of these motions.

Master R.A. Muir DATE: July 26, 2016