Court File and Parties

2020 ONSC 2418 Court File No.: CV-14-511281 Date: 2020/04/20

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: SIGNATURE REALTY INC. o/a ROYAL LEPAGE SIGNATURE REALTY and RE/MAX REALTRON REALTY INC. Plaintiffs

• and - FRANCESCO FALLICO, CARMELA FALLICO, EATON CHEN, YUN CHEN (also known as SAM CHEN) and XIUHUI YANG Defendants

Counsel: Vusumzi Msi for the Plaintiffs Alfred Schorr for the Defendants Francesco Fallico and Carmela Fallico

Heard: In writing

Perell, J.

Reasons for Decision - Costs

[1] In this action, the Plaintiffs, Signature Realty Inc. and Re/Max Realtron Realty Inc. alleged that they were owed a commission on the sale of a property municipally known as 72 Crestwood Road in Thornhill, Ontario. The property was sold in 2014 by the Defendants Frencesco (Frank) Fallico and Carmela Fallico to the Defendant Eaton Chen, who is the father of the Defendant Yun (“Sam”) Chen and also the ex-spouse of the Defendant Xiuhui Yang, who is Sam Chen’s mother. On December 6, 2017, Signature Realty and Re/Max Realtron obtained a default judgment against the Fallicos for conspiracy and for breach of the agreement to pay commission on the sale of 72 Crestwood, which was the Fallicos’ former residence. The Fallicos brought a motion to have the default judgment set aside. I dismissed the motion.

[2] The Plaintiffs claim costs of $32,851.27 all inclusive of disbursements ($2,036.16) and taxes on a substantial indemnity basis. The partial indemnity claim is $24,695.49.

[3] The Defendants submit that there is no basis for a substantial indemnity award and that the all-inclusive partial indemnity award should be $17,590.62.

[4] I agree with the Defendants that there is nothing in the conduct of this litigation that would warrant a punitive costs award and that the appropriate scale is the partial indemnity scale.

[5] I also agree with the Defendants that there should be some reduction of the counsel fee for redundancies. After reviewing the Bill of Costs, in my opinion, the appropriate award is $21,000, all inclusive.

[6] In the circumstances of the Covid-19 emergency, these Reasons for Decision are deemed to be an Order of the court that is operative and enforceable without any need for a signed or entered, formal, typed order.

[7] The parties may and should submit formal orders for signing and entry once the court re-opens; however, these Reasons for Decision are an effective and binding Order from the time of release.

Perell, J.

[8] Released: April 20, 2020