Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-438419 DATE: 20170330 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM CONNERS Plaintiff – and – FRANCESCO D’ANGELO, VINCENZA TARTAGLIA a.k.a. ENZA TARTAGLIA and GORE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants
Counsel: Aliza Karoly for the Plaintiff Christopher P. Klinowski for the Defendant Vincenza Tartaglia
HEARD: In writing
PERELL, J.
Reasons for Decision - Costs
[1]
Introduction
This is a costs decision following my reasons for decision: Conners v. D’Angelo, 2017 ONSC 1104. As explained in detail in that summary judgment decision, the Plaintiff, William Conners, was a passenger in a vehicle owned by the Defendant, Ms. Tartaglia, and driven by her 15-year-old nephew, the Defendant, Francesco D’Angelo. The issue for the summary judgment motion was whether Ms. Tartaglia’s vehicle was in the possession of Mr. D’Angelo without her consent. I concluded that it was, and I dismissed Mr. Conners’ action against Ms. Tartaglia.
[2]
The Costs Claim and Objections
Ms. Tartaglia claims costs of $17,974.80, all inclusive, for the summary judgment motion and $15,884.06, all inclusive, for the action, for a total claim of $33,858.86.
3In the calculation of this claim for costs, the following facts should be noted. For the motion, the hourly rate negotiated by the insurer was $200. For the rest of the action there was a flat fee arrangement of $15,000 that funded three separate days of discovery and multiple court attendances. The actual time docketed was $29,229.50, well in excess of the $15,000 billed.
4Mr. Conners’ objections to the bill of costs are found in paragraphs 3 and 4 of his written submissions, which state:
The conduct of any party that tended to lengthen the proceeding - Although not defending this motion, the party D'Angelo contributed to lengthen the duration of the proceeding. Moving for summary judgment was first suggested by the moving party in November 2013. Ongoing correspondence which are attached suggest that there was delay due to the Defendant D'Angelo's non-compliance with undertakings; which included documents needed for this motion. The moving party's predecessor on the file also did not comply with Tartaglia's undertakings or move for youth justice file of Mr. D'Angelo on a timely basis. Copies of correspondence regarding delay are attached.
The following disbursements in the bill of costs of the moving party are not proper Tariff items and should not be allowed. They are: (a) Mileage and Travel, 407 ETR expense; This is a Toronto action and was defended by counsel in Hamilton; (b) In-house photocopies and outside printing- these amounts are excessive and the Plaintiff should not bear the costs of copies to the other four parties that were served; (c) Postage, courier and fax; (d) Cost of computer research; (e) MTO Plate/Driver search; (f) productions; (g) police reports; (h) Miscellaneous expense; (i) Parking.
[5]
Analysis and Disposition
I see no reason to reduce Ms. Tartaglia’s modest and most reasonable claim for costs for what was a crucial motion and a successful resolution of the claim against her.
6As for Mr. Conners’ objection to the disbursements, assuming without deciding that some or all of them are not proper disbursements but having regard to the very reasonable claim for costs, I disallow the disbursements but increase the counsel fee in equal measure.
7The result is that Ms. Tartaglia’s claim for costs should be allowed at $33,858.86.
Perell, J.
Released: March 30, 2017