Romano v Sills, 2017 ONSC 6849
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Giuseppe Romano and Filomena Romano
Plaintiffs
– and –
Thomas Sills
Defendant
COUNSEL:
Domenic Saverino for the Plaintiffs
Dennis G. Crawford and Martin F. Mahlstedt for the Defendant
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice James W. Sloan
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
1This is not a case where costs should be awarded against a solicitor.
2The plaintiffs were successful in obtaining a judgment in the amount of $11,826.98.
3They now seek costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $12,827.60, failing which on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $8,929.10.
4In essence they submit that they are entitled to substantial indemnity costs because the mortgage document says they are entitled to them.
5Notwithstanding the mortgage document, I am not prepared to consider substantial indemnity costs where to do so would mean that the plaintiffs recover more in costs than they did for their action.
6It was clear from my judgment that the plaintiffs grossly overreached, when they demanded almost four times what the court found they were entitled to, before they would give a discharge of mortgage.
7While it is true that they also obtained possession of the property in the event that the $11,826.98 was not paid within 30 days, that issue was never seriously argued.
8The whole reason this matter proceeded to a hearing was because of the plaintiffs’ overinflated demands. In addition the plaintiffs did not serve any offer to settle.
9Although the defendant’s offer was $2,826.98 less than the judgment, at least they made an offer to settle.
10However, much like the plaintiffs, the defendant maintained throughout the argument that the interest rate on his second mortgage was 0.8%.
11Like the plaintiffs’ inflated claim, the defendant’s adherence to this interest rate made the matter virtually unsettle able.
12For the above reasons, I decline to award either party costs.
J.W.Sloan J.
Released: November 15, 2017