[1] In paragraph 30 of my Reasons on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dated June 20, 2017 I found in favour of the Plaintiff and directed the parties to make written submissions on Costs within 30 days if they were unable to resolve the issue of Costs.

[2] Counsel for the Plaintiff is seeking partial indemnity costs inclusive of HST and disbursements of $18,129.55. Counsel for the Defendant argued that the amount claimed by counsel for the Plaintiff was excessive for this motion and proposed an award in the amount of $12,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

[3] An award of costs is a matter in the discretion of the judge by virtue of s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, which provides:

Subject to the provisions of an Act or rules of court, the costs of and incidental to a proceeding or a step in a proceeding are in the discretion of the court, and the court may determine by whom and to what extent costs shall be paid.

[4] The Ontario Court of Appeal has made it clear that in assessing costs, the overriding principle is one of reasonableness, and that the failure to follow that principle can produce a result that is contrary to the fundamental objective of access to justice (Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, (2004), [2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii14579/2004canlii14579.html), 71 OR (3d) 291 (Ont CA) at para [37](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2004/2004canlii14579/2004canlii14579.html)).

[5] This matter was not complex; however, it was of significant importance to the parties. The Defendant sought to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful dismissal and to change the venue of the trial, should summary judgment not be granted. The Defendant was unsuccessful on both issues.

[6] In considering the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs and the submissions of the parties I find that an award of $15,000.00 for costs inclusive of HST and disbursements shall be awarded to the Plaintiff, payable by the Defendant.

Madam Justice B. R. Warkentin, R.S.J.

Released: November 27, 2017

CITATION: T.D. Nuttall v. Kenora District Services Board, 2017 ONSC 6995

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-0358-00

DATE: 2017-11-27

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

THOMAS DAVID NUTTALL

Plaintiff

and –

KENORA DISTRICT SERVICES BOARD

Defendant

REASONS ON COSTS

B. Warkentin R.S.J.

Released: November 27, 2017

T.D. Nuttall v. Kenora District Services Board, 2017 ONSC 6995

Case Summary

[1] In paragraph 30 of my Reasons on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dated June 20, 2017 I found in favour of the Plaintiff and directed the parties to make written submissions on Costs within 30 days if they were unable to resolve the issue of Costs.

[3] An award of costs is a matter in the discretion of the judge by virtue of s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, which provides:

[5] This matter was not complex; however, it was of significant importance to the parties. The Defendant sought to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful dismissal and to change the venue of the trial, should summary judgment not be granted. The Defendant was unsuccessful on both issues.

[6] In considering the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs and the submissions of the parties I find that an award of $15,000.00 for costs inclusive of HST and disbursements shall be awarded to the Plaintiff, payable by the Defendant.

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues