Hydrosolutions S.E.C. v. QMI Manufacturing Inc., 2020 ONSC 1952

Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18000-78500-000 DATE: 03/30/2020 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: HYDROSOLUTIONS S.E.C. – Plaintiff v. QMI MANUFACTURING INC. - Defendant

BEFORE: Madam Justice Julianne Parfett

COUNSEL: Samuel Bachand, for the Plaintiff Christopher Macaulay, for the Defendant

HEARD: By Written Submissions

Costs Endorsement

1The parties have been unable to resolve the issue of costs and have referred the matter to me for determination.

Background

2The Plaintiff in this matter is a company domiciled in Quebec. The Defendant is a company domiciled in British Columbia.

3The Plaintiff started an action in Ontario based on the choice of forum clause in the contract. The Defendant brought a motion to dismiss the action on the basis Ontario did not have jurisdiction.

Positions of the Parties

4The Defendant was the successful party on the motion and seeks its costs.

5The Plaintiff argues that it should receive costs on the basis the action was initially filed in Ontario given the forum selection clause and the Defendant acted in bad faith in bringing the motion to dismiss.

Analysis

6The Defendant was the successful party in this motion. Consequently, the basic principle as set out in R. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure that a successful party should have their costs paid by the unsuccessful parties applies in this case. I see no reason to depart from this general principle.

7Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the Court has discretion in determining an award of costs and that several factors should be taken into consideration. In the context of this case, I consider the following factors to be applicable:

• 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;
• The complexity of the proceeding;
• The importance of the issues;
• Any other matter relevant to the question of costs.

8The overriding principle in fixing costs is fairness and reasonableness that reflects the reasonable expectations of the parties.

9In the present case, costs on a partial indemnity basis are appropriate. There were no offers to settle made. The matter needed to be resolved given the Plaintiff’s position that Ontario had jurisdiction and the proceeding could not move forward without the issue being dealt with. The issue in question was not particularly complex as the legal principles surrounding jurisdiction are well understood. Finally, the issue, while important to the parties, was not of general importance.

10The Defendant is seeking $8277.35 in costs. I have reviewed the Bill of Costs that was filed with the court. Taking into consideration the factors set out in R. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, I order the Plaintiff to pay $8000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST.