Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: 446/19 DATE: 2020 04 28 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Chris Cormpilas, Barbara Cormpilas, Dimitri Ioannidis and Gregory Ioannidis, Applicants AND: John Ioannidis, Respondent

BEFORE: Conlan J.

COUNSEL: Joanne Lagoudis, Counsel for the Applicants Eric Kerson, Counsel for the Respondent

Endorsement on Costs

I. Introduction

[1] Between the Applicants on the one hand, Chris Cormpilas, Barbara Cormpilas, Dimitri Ioannidis and Gregory Ioannidis (“Applicants”), and the Respondent on the other hand, John Ioannidis (“Respondent”), there is a dispute about a property that they own together in Georgetown, Ontario (“Property”).

[2] On January 13, 2020, on consent by way of executed Minutes of Settlement, this Court ordered, among other things, that the Respondent, by April 1, 2020, vacate the Property and transfer his interest in it to the Applicants.

[3] Approximately one week before April 1, 2020, counsel for the Respondent withdrew from the file.

[4] On April 1, 2020, during the period of partial suspension of the Court’s regular operations because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, at the behest of the Applicants, this Court issued an Endorsement which directed that “the Minutes of Settlement executed by the parties on January 13, 2020 shall be complied with in all respects”.

[5] The Respondent did not adhere to the Orders made on January 13 and April 1, 2020, and thus, the Applicants moved urgently for consequential relief, including an order to dispense with the Respondent’s signature on Transfer documents respecting the Property.

[6] The Respondent then retained new counsel, and to their credit the two sides resolved the Motion except for the issue of costs.

[7] On costs, written submissions have been filed. The Applicants seek costs in the range of $7,196.15 (partial indemnity) to $10,597.72 (substantial indemnity). The Respondent suggests no costs or, alternatively, nominal costs in favour of the Applicants.

II. Decision

[8] There is no question that the Applicants are entitled to some costs. Although the Respondent is correct that the Motion was resolved short of everything that the Applicants were seeking in terms of relief, the fact is that nothing would have been done to further the Transfer but for the Applicants’ Motion. Clearly, the Respondent failed or refused to obey the Court Orders made on January 13 and April 1, 2020, and there is no merit to the suggestion that he somehow thought that an intervening event, including but not limited to the withdrawal of services by his former counsel, absolved him of the requirements to vacate the Property and effect the Transfer of his interest in it by April 1st.

[9] The only question of any substance is the appropriate quantum of costs. That is an issue of discretion, keeping in mind (i) the factors outlined in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, (ii) the objectives of costs awards which are to partially indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and sanction bad or inappropriate conduct by or on behalf of a litigant, and (iii) the penultimate goal of making an award that is just, reasonable, fair, and proportionate in all of the circumstances that are presented.

[10] Partial indemnity recovery is the most appropriate result here, in my opinion. Further, I agree with counsel for the Respondent that some reduction in the quantum sought by the Applicants is warranted, simply to account for the fact that the Applicants’ Motion was very simple and, frankly, virtually guaranteed of success.

[11] Accordingly, this Court orders that the Respondent shall pay to the Applicants costs in the total amount of $5,000.00.

Conlan J.

Date: April 28, 2020