Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-16-552210 Date: 2016-08-09 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: JOHN DAVIDSON GREGORY, Applicant And: RYAN LINDAN GILL, DANIELLA MILETIN-GILL, LAUREN ASHLEIGH BEATON, AARON MOSHA GLAZER and FIRST NATIONAL FINANCIAL GP CORPORATION, Respondents

Before: Carole J. Brown, J.

Counsel: Mark Wainberg, for the Applicant Howard D Gerson, for the Respondents Gill and Miletin-Gill

Heard: June 24, 2016

Addendum to Endorsement

[1] My decision in this matter, which fixed terms of a Full and Final Release, was released on June 28, 2016. Based on my reasons in that case, and in all of the circumstances stated therein, I exercised my discretion as regards costs and made no order as to costs. Each party was to bear their own costs.

[2] Following release of my decision, counsel for the applicant requested the opportunity to make written costs submissions regarding offers to settle. I permitted this to be done.

[3] Counsel have now provided Applicant's and Respondents’ Submissions, as well as Reply and Counter Reply Submissions.

[4] The applicant submits that he made an offer to settle the matter, consistent with my final determination, on June 20, 2016, four days prior to the return of the motion. He submits that, while not within the time requirements of a formal Rule 49 offer, this offer should be considered as a factor in awarding costs. He relies on Konig v Hobza, 2015 ONCA 885. He seeks $2,500 in costs.

[5] Counsel for the respondents submit that they served offers not substantially different from the applicant's but which included release of the claims to the date of settlement and sought payment of $1,500 in costs. They further submit that procedural issues were not observed in setting down the applicant's motion and the motion was scheduled on an abridged basis, at the applicant's request.

[6] They take the position that the offers exchanged should not alter the court’s decision rendered.

[7] Thereafter, reply submissions were exchanged, which focused in large part on the procedural issues, demonstrating ongoing tensions between the parties and/or their counsel.

[8] In exercising my discretion as regards costs and whether my decision of June 28 regarding costs should be altered, I have read the caselaw provided by both counsel and I have also considered the submissions in light of Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and in light of all of the circumstances, as set forth in my decision of June 28. In that decision, I stated that "I am not satisfied that the lawyers have, in fact, acted reasonably throughout concerning a mutual release". In all of the circumstances, I made no order as to costs.

[9] I have now considered all written costs submissions. My decision of June 28, 2016 is not altered.

Carole J. Brown, J. Date: August 9, 2016