Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: DAVID W. ERNEWEIN, Plaintiff (Responding Party)
and:
Honda Canada Inc., operating as Honda of Canada MFG, PAUL CURRIE, LORI VAN VALKENBURG, JOHN DOE(S), Defendants (Moving Party)
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice J.R. McCARTHY
COUNSEL: Marc Lemieux, counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent
Greg McGinnis, counsel for the Defendants/Applicants
HEARD: In writing
costs ENDORSEMENT
Background
1The Defendants sought leave to appeal from the order of Mr. Justice DiTomaso dated February 17, 2017. In that order, the motion judge: a) dismissed Honda’s motion for partial summary judgment; b) ordered Honda to produce documents relevant to claims for overtime dating back to 1997; and c) ordered Honda to produce a document over which solicitor-client privilege was claimed.
2The leave motion was brought in writing and was opposed. On June 16, 2017, I dismissed the leave motion and invited the parties to make written submissions in respect of costs. I have now received and considered those written submissions.
Analysis
3I see no reason to depart from the normal approach to costs: that a successful party on a motion should be entitled to recover its costs. The moving party made a compelling, logical if ultimately unsuccessful argument. The responding party put forth a fulsome, thoughtful and ultimately convincing response.
4The leave motion was of moderate complexity. It called for a careful of review of the motion’s judge reasons together with a consideration of some areas of law including limitations, solicitor-client privilege and of course, recent developments in the law of summary judgment.
5The moving party is a sophisticated corporate party. It must have expected that an unsuccessful leave motion on an interlocutory order would likely result in a costs award against it.
6The responding party seeks costs in the amount of $6,535.95. The moving party suggests that cost should be in the cause of the action; in the alternative, the Defendants suggest that costs should not exceed $3,000.00.
7I am prepared to award costs to the Plaintiff/Responding party, fixed and payable forthwith in the amount sought by him. The claim is not exorbitant; it is entirely proportional to the importance of the issues and to the manner and effort involved in responding to the leave application.
Disposition
8There shall be an order to go that the Defendants/Moving party pay to the Plaintiff/Responding party his costs of the leave motion in the amount of $6,535.95 inclusive of HST and disbursements. Those costs are fixed and payable forthwith.
J. R. McCarthy J.
Date: August 3, 2017