Court File and Parties

CITATION: Nelson v. Lavoie, 2016 ONSC 6473

COURT FILE NO.: C-2012-12

DATE: 2016-10-17

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Sheryl Nelson, Plaintiff

AND:

Roland Lavoie, Investment Planning Counsel Inc., IPC Investment Corporation, IGM Financial Inc., Dennis Serre and Serre Financial Consulting Services Inc., Defendants

BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice Patricia C. Hennessy

COUNSEL: P. Peter Diavolitsis, for the Plaintiff/Responding Party

Kenneth A. Dekker/Christopher J. Somerville, for the Defendants/Moving Parties

HEARD: Written Submissions

ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS

[1] The moving parties, Lavoie et al, were successful on a motion to produce a document in the litigation. The responding party, Nelson, had asserted that the document was protected by solicitor client privilege.

[2] The moving party seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $11,406.00 plus HST. This figure is based upon docketed time by two lawyers, a clerk and an articling student, for a total of 50.4 hours, exclusive of attendance on the motion.

[3] The responding party submitted a bill of costs showing fees on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,566.52 based on one lawyer’s total docketed hours of 20.1 hours at a lower rate than that charged by the moving party.

[4] The difference between the two bills of cost is dramatic and reflects, among other things, the expenses related to big firm structures where three levels of legal professionals plus a clerk work on a file and the rates are those which the downtown Toronto market can bear.

[5] The question is, what is the amount that an individual litigant from Sudbury should reasonably expect to pay in costs when unsuccessful in responding to a motion for production of one document. The motion was very important to the parties as the decision may trigger limitation period issues. However, the question before the court was not overly complicated. The decision turned on the facts, including the role of a lawyer in obtaining or arranging for an opinion and the role of the accountant who gave the opinion.

[6] I am of the view that this motion could have been well prepared in far less time than the 50 hours claimed by moving parties. The amount of time claimed by the responding party represents a more reasonable and proportionate approach to the matter. A litigant would not reasonably expect to pay the amount claimed for this step in the process.

[7] Taking into account all of the factors in Rule 57, a reasonable amount for costs of this motion is $5,000.00 plus HST and disbursements. An order shall go for costs to the moving parties in this amount.

The Honourable Madam Justice Patricia C. Hennessy

Date: October 17, 2016