Weldan Properties Inc. v. Deangelis, 2017 ONSC 5021
COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-3919; CV-17-1606
DATE: 20170823
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: CHRISTOPHER DEANGELIS AND PASQUALE DEANGELIS, Applicants
AND:
WELDAN PROPERTIES (HAIG) INC., Respondents
AND RE: WELDAN PROPERTIES (HAIG) INC., Applicant
AND:
CHRISTOPHER DEANGELIS AND PASQUALE DEANGELIS, Respondents
BEFORE: Ricchetti J.
COUNSEL: R. Hanna for Weldan Properties (Haig) Inc.
B. Roberston and N. Sangrar for Christopher Deangelis and Pasquale Deangelis
HEARD: in writing
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] Written submissions were received from the parties.
[2] Weldan seeks costs of $33,420.77 on a substantial indemnity basis or, alternatively, $22,199.19 on a partial indemnity basis.
[3] Deangelis submit there should be no costs ordered.
Entitlement to Costs
[4] There were no Offers to Settle which engage cost consequences under the Rules.
[5] There is no dispute that Weldan was entirely successful on the application.
[6] Deangelis submit given: this was a novel issue; the nature of the proceeding; the importance to Deangelis; and that their position was entirely reasonable, no costs should be awarded.
[7] In my view, the application of the doctrine of good faith had no application given that there was an express term in the Agreement requiring compliance by the parties. This was not a novel issue. It has never been suggested that the doctrine of good faith could override a party’s explicit obligation under a valid contractual term, fairly negotiated and agreed to by the parties.
[8] Costs to the successful party, Weldan.
Scale of Costs
[9] There is no basis a punitive award of substantial indemnity costs should be awarded.
[10] There are a number of factors to consider: Deangelis were unsuccessful on the legal issues; this issue was raised in a bona fide way; the impact to Deangelis was significant; Weldan reaps a windfall from the termination of the Agreement; and that Deangelis were not able to complete the transaction through no fault of their own.
[11] Weighing all relevant factors, there is no basis for costs to be awarded beyond partial indemnity costs.
[12] Partial indemnity costs in favour of Weldan.
Quantum of Costs
[13] Deangelis made no specific challenged on the quantum of costs sought by Weldan for costs. The reason, perhaps, is that the partial indemnity costs Deangelis sought in their Costs Outline, prior to the application, was $29,402.45.
[14] This sets the reasonable expectation of Deangelis, if they were to lose the application. They lost the application.
[15] Costs in favour of Weldan in the amount of $22,199.19 (all inclusive) payable forthwith.
Ricchetti J.
Date: August 23, 2017
Weldan Properties Inc. v. Deangelis, 2017 ONSC 5021
COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-3919; CV-17-1606
DATE: 20170823
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
RE: CHRISTOPHER DEANGELIS AND PASQUALE DEANGELIS V. WELDAN PROPERTIES (HAIG) INC.
AND
WELDAN PROPERTIES (HAIG) INC. V. CHRISTOPHER DEANGELIS AND PASQUALE DEANGELIS
BEFORE: Ricchetti, J.
COUNSEL: R. Hanna for Weldan Properties (Haig) Inc.
B. Roberston and N. Sangrar for Christopher Deangelis and Pasquale Deangelis
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Ricchetti, J.
DATE: August 23, 2017