Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 3443/16 DATE: 2019 03 25 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: BAEUMLER QUALITY CONSTRUCTION INC., Plaintiff AND: CHARLES ANTHONY PIRRAGLIA, DONNA-LYNN PIRRAGLIA and CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Defendants

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: Jonathan Goode, Counsel for the Plaintiff Zachary Pringle and Kaushik Parameswaran, Counsel for the Defendants, the Pirraglias

Endorsement on Costs

I. Introduction

[1] The parties entered into a contract for some work to be done at a property in Oakville, Ontario. The Defendants, the Pirraglias, were the owners of the property, while the Plaintiff, Baeumler, was the contractor.

[2] A dispute arose as to payment, and Baeumler sued the Pirraglias in an action under the then construction lien legislation.

[3] The Pirraglias moved to strike the lien that Baeumler had filed. They argued that it had expired before it was registered.

[4] The said Motion depended on the resolution of whether the contract between the parties had been abandoned more than 45 days before the lien was registered, as argued by the Pirraglias.

[5] In its decision reported at 2018 ONSC 7610, dated December 19, 2018, this Court disagreed with the position advanced by the Pirraglias and dismissed their Motion.

[6] Unable to settle the costs of the Motion, written materials have been filed by both sides.

II. The Positions of the Parties on Costs

[7] Baeumler asks for its costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $23,002.10.

[8] The Pirraglias do not deny that Baeumler is entitled to some costs but suggest that a more reasonable quantum would be something in the range of $7500.00.

III. Decision

[9] The only issue to be decided is the quantum of costs to be awarded to Baeumler.

[10] The objective is to make an award that is just, fair and reasonable. All of the circumstances of the case ought to be considered, as well as the factors outlined in Rule 57, particularly 57.01(1), of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The reasonable expectations of the losing side should be taken into account. Proportionality is key, both in relation to the result achieved and the time and effort expended.

[11] I agree with Baeumler that the decision of Master Albert of the Superior Court of Justice in Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Canalfa Liberty Village Homes Inc. is helpful. It reminds us that a motion to strike a lien is akin to a motion for summary judgment, and it sets out some factors to consider in assessing the issue of costs: (i) the stakes, (ii) the scope, (iii) reasonableness, (iv) expertise, and (v) knowledge of risk, among other items.

[12] I also agree with the Pirraglias, however, that $23,000.00, approximately, in costs for a one-issue Motion based primarily on documentary evidence (correspondence between the parties) is too rich. That is especially so when one considers that Baeumler’s entire claim is for about $34,000.00, in principal.

[13] This exercise, as counsel know, is more art than science. I think that $15,000.00, all-in, is a more fair amount of compensation to be awarded to this litigant, Baeumler, who was confronted with a fairly straightforward yet serious and important motion and successfully persuaded this Court to dismiss it.

[14] Hence, that is what is ordered herein. The Pirraglias shall, within thirty days, pay to Baeumler costs in the total amount of $15,000.00.

[15] I do thank counsel for being concise in their costs submissions.

Conlan J. Date: March 25, 2019