CITATION: CENTRAL STATION SECURITY SERVICES INC. v. AVENUE SECURITY CENTRE INC, 2016 ONSC 7888
COURT FILE NO.: 14-61201
DATE: 2016-12-15
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CENTRAL STATION SECURITY SERVICES INC.
Plaintiff/Respondent
– and –
AVENUE SECURITY CENTRE INC., JAMES SAIKALEY, MICHELINE SAIKALEY and AVENUE LOCK & SECURITY LTD.
Defendant/Applicant
Maxime Desforges, for the Plaintiff/Respondent
John E. MacDonell, for the Defendant/Applicant
HEARD: In Writing
COSTS REASONS
T.D.RAY, J
[1] The defendants obtained summary judgement dismissing the claim as against the individual defendants as well as Avenue Lock and Security Inc.(2016 ONSC 6940). There was no claim articulated as against the corporate defendant. As for the individual defendants, their claim only came to life in June, 2016 after the individual defendants revived the first named corporate defendant. In other words the defendants’ successful summary judgement motion was based on grounds that did not exist at the time they delivered their defence. Having delayed in the revival of the corporate defendant, and thereby having defeated the plaintiff’s claim as against the individual defendants, the individual defendants should be liable to indemnify the plaintiffs for those thrown away costs. The defendants’ motion for security for costs as against the plaintiff was dismissed. On the basis that costs should follow the event, the defendants are prima facie liable to indemnify the plaintiff for those costs.
[2] On the other hand the individual defendants were successful on their summary judgement motion and should be prima facie entitled to those costs. In addition they claim that an offer in July, if accepted, would have made the summary judgement motion unnecessary; and contend I should take that into account.
[3] The defendants claim costs inclusive of disbursements and HST in the amount of $12,424.65. The defendants’ claim of 37.5 hours for drafting the motion materials and attending the motion is excessive. The materials are neither complicated nor voluminous. The plaintiff claims costs of $1,918.18. The plaintiff apparently did not anticipate indemnity for the costs he incurred up to July 2016, when the defendants created the grounds to insulate themselves from liability. However, I can estimate those costs.
[4] Having regard to the relative success of the parties and their respective costs they likely incurred, I consider it a wash. The costs entitled by each party is set off against the other. There will therefore be no order as to costs.
Honourable Justice Timothy Ray
Released: December 15, 2016
CITATION: CENTRAL STATION SECURITY SERVICES INC. v. AVENUE SECURITY CENTRE INC, 2016 ONSC 7888
COURT FILE NO.: 14-61201
DATE: 2016-12-15
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CENTRAL STATION SECURITY SERVICES INC.
Plaintiff/Respondent
– and –
AVENUE SECURITY CENTRE INC., JAMES SAIKALEY, MICHELINE SAIKALEY and AVENUE LOCK & SECURITY LTD.
Defendant/Applicant
costs REASONS
Honourable Justice Timothy Ray
Released: December 15, 2016