Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-4541-00 DATE: 2018 11 19 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Alice Gordon et al, Plaintiffs and: State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant
BEFORE: Justice G.D. Lemon
COUNSEL: Brian A. Pickard, Counsel for the Plaintiffs Steve Coons, Counsel for the Defendant
HEARD: In Writing
Costs Endorsement
The Issue
[1] On September 4, 2018, I granted State Farm’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. I have now received costs submissions from the parties.
[2] State Farm submits that it should receive costs in the amount of $16,830.23. The plaintiffs submit that costs should be fixed in the amount of $10,000.00 all inclusive.
Authorities
[3] Rule 57.01 of our Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the factors that the court may consider when determining costs. The relevant factors that I should consider here are:
(a) the result in the proceeding,
(b) the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged and the hours spent by that lawyer;
(c) the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;
(d) the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;
(e) the complexity of the proceeding;
(f) the importance of the issues;
(g) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding.
[4] Modern costs rules are designed to foster three fundamental purposes: (1) to partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation; (2) to encourage settlement; and (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants: Fong v. Chan, (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, at para. 22.
[5] Costs awards, at the end of the day, should reflect “what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties”: see Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291, at para. 24.
Analysis
[6] The motion brought the action to an end. Accordingly, this costs order should deal with both the motion and the action itself.
[7] In reviewing the Bill of Costs, four lawyers and a law clerk were involved in “communications and correspondence.” Without further explanation, that seems unreasonable. There then appears to be a slow process of the file from one counsel to another to finally the counsel that argued the case. While that would include duplication of work, it has also meant that the file has finally ended up in the hands of the most cost effective lawyer.
[8] Many of the issues put forward in the factum were withdrawn at the commencement of argument.
[9] State Farm offered to settle the action by payment of $1,000.00. The plaintiffs did not accept the offer.
[10] Taking all of the factors into consideration, I find that a fair and reasonable amount of costs would be $15,000.00 payable by the plaintiffs to the State Farm.
Justice G.D. Lemon Date: November 19, 2018
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-4541-00 DATE: 2018 11 19 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: Alice Gordon et al Plaintiffs – and – State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company Defendant
COSTS ENDORSEMENT Lemon, J
Released: November 19, 2018