Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-549970

DATE: 20180412

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Jonathane Ricci, Plaintiff

AND:

The Law Society of Upper Canada, Mary Ann Lord, Janice L. LaForme and David W. Cass, Defendants

BEFORE: Pollak J.

COUNSEL: James Morton, for the Plaintiff

Susan Sack, for the Defendants

HEARD: November 20, 2017

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] I have had the opportunity to review the cost submissions of the parties. The Law Society was the successful party on this motion for summary and asks for costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $48,655.88.

[2] To support this request, the Law Society relies on the unreasonable conduct of the Plaintiff in this litigation, arguing that the proceedings were unnecessarily complicated and lengthened as a result of the extreme positions taken by the Plaintiff.

[3] The Plaintiff, however, submits that full indemnity costs are not justified as the Plaintiff’s costs do not meet the stringent test set out by the Court of Appeal in the case of Davies v. The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington, 2016 ONSC 6636. I agree with this submission. Further, the Plaintiff argues that in accordance with the principles in the Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.) case, costs must be fair and reasonable and within the expectation of the parties. The Plaintiff challenges the amount of time spent by the Law Society on this motion. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiff’s allegations in the claim and their potential impact on the reputation of the Law Society were very serious and had a potential detrimental impact on the Defendants’ reputations. As a result, the Defendants had to address all of the allegations made by the Plaintiff. Further, the Plaintiff withdrew a significant amount of his claim with respect to the alleged negligence investigation, defamation and Charter breaches right before the motion for summary judgement was heard. Significant legal fees could have been avoided if the Plaintiff had not waited until right before the hearing to withdraw his serious allegations.

[4] The Defendants also rely on their Offer to Settle dated January 16, 2017, but does not provide any breakdown of costs up to and after the date of the offer to settle.

[5] I do not agree with the Plaintiff’s challenge of the effectiveness of the Offer to Settle on the ground that it was only “a proposal that the Plaintiff surrender its claim”, and not a compromise. The compromise in the Offer was with respect to the dismissal of the action on a without costs basis.

[6] I find that it is just and equitable in this case to award costs to the Law Society, calculated and based on the costs set out in its Bill of Costs, on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the Offer and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter.

Pollak J.

Date: April 12, 2018