Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 08-CV-41210 DATE: 20170227 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

DEANA ROTONDO and CHANDRA SAUNDERS Plaintiffs/Responding Parties – and – OTTAWA POLICE SERVICES BOARD and OTTAWA POLICE DETECTIVE MARTIN GROULX and OTTAWA POLICE CONSTABLE DAWN NEILLY and OTTAWA POLICE CONSTABLE VAN NGUYEN and OTTAWA POLICE CONSTABLE ELI EDWARDS Defendants/Moving Parties

Counsel: Cheryl Letourneau, for the Plaintiff/Responding Party, Deana Rotondo Jeremy Wright, for the Defendants/Moving Parties

HEARD: By written submissions

Decision on Costs

Beaudoin J.

[1] The Plaintiff, Deana Rotondo, (“Rotondo”) sought damages for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation and breach of her Charter rights, namely: s. 9 (Arbitrary Detention); s. 8 (Unauthorized Search and Seizure); and s. 7 (Right to Life, Liberty and Security of the Person). Chandra Saunders had previously consented to a dismissal of her claims.

[2] On December 23, 2016, I dismissed Rotondo’s action after argument of the Motion for Summary Judgment brought by the Defendants. The Defendants now seek their cost on a partial indemnity basis throughout the action including the Motion for Summary Judgment.

[3] Since the action had been previously dismissed as against the other Plaintiff, the legal fees sought by the Defendants have been reduced by one half for those steps in the litigation which involved both Plaintiffs.

[4] The Defendants submit that the Motion for Summary Judgment involved important issues relating to the civil liability for police actions, including the circumstances in which liability ought to be imposed when criminal proceedings have concluded in favour of a party. The Defendants submit that the matter was of moderate complexity.

[5] The Defendants note that Rotondo’s Examination for Discovery had to be continued after significant delay when she refused to answer certain questions, which she subsequently agreed to answer. This led to unnecessary delay and additional time for the Defendants’ lawyers.

[6] Defendants’ counsel maintain that they have appropriately assigned and delegated tasks in this matter and that their costs, as reflected in their Bill of Costs, are reasonable and well within the amount a party would expect to pay in relation to this proceeding. They seek an award of costs in the amount of $16,721.32 together with post judgment interest from the date of judgment.

[7] In response, Rotondo submits that the Motion for Summary Judgment was unnecessarily delayed since the evidence to determine the existence of reasonable and probable grounds for the various torts, as well as the issue of the Charter remedies, was readily available following the trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

[8] Rotondo cites the decision in Abboud v. Ottawa (City) Police Service Board, 2016 ONSC 1052 in support of her argument that it was reasonable for her to oppose the Summary Judgment on substantial grounds. Rotondo submits that the Defendants are only entitled to partial indemnity costs of the Summary Judgment Motion and not of the action.

Conclusion

[9] I see no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party, on a motion for Summary Judgment, should be entitled to the costs of the motion as well as the costs of the action. Rotondo was at all times in charge of this litigation and has not offered any specific examples of delay by the Defendants other than to allege that they could have brought the Summary Judgment sooner.

[10] The Defendants cannot be faulted for ensuring that all available evidence was put before the Court before seeking summary judgment. The Abboud decision, which involved the same counsel, offered little support for Rotondo’s arguments. The amounts claimed by the Defendants are all reasonable and reflect the amount that an unsuccessful party could reasonably be expected to pay in relation to a proceeding which has dragged on for eight years.

[11] I accordingly order Rotondo to pay costs in the amount of $16,721.30 together with post judgment interest from the date of the Judgment.

Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

Released: February 27, 2017