BRACEBRIDGE COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-158
DATE: August 31, 2020
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CHRISTOPHER LEE WHITE
Plaintiff
– and –
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF BRACEBRIDGE and
MARK GRAND
Defendants
David A. Morin and Peter M. Reinitzer
Counsel for the Plaintiff
B. Robin Moodie and T. Casement
Counsel for the Defendant, The Corporation of the Town of Bracebridge
Mark Grand, Self-represented
HEARD: In Writing
REASONS FOR DECISION ON COSTS
DiTOMASO J.
THe Proceeding
[1] The Plaintiff Christopher Lee White (Mr. White) purchased a house from the owner and builder, the Defendant Mark Grand (Mr. Grand). Mr. Grand had renovated the house and had constructed an addition. After the purchase, Mr. White discovered building deficiencies on the part of Mr. Grand. Mr. White also discovered building deficiencies that should have been detected by the Defendant The Corporation of the Town of Bracebridge (the Town). After a six day trial, Mr. White was awarded the sum of $126,292.12 for damages as against Mr. Grand. Further, Mr. White was awarded the sum of $82,523.99 as against the Town and Mr. Grand. These Defendants were held jointly and severally liable to pay the sum of $82,523.99 to Mr. White. Mr. Grand’s cross-claim against the Town was dismissed. The Town was awarded judgment against Mr. Grand in the Town’s cross-claim in the amount of $82,523.99.
[2] Mr. White, the successful Plaintiff, now seeks his costs against Mr. Grand and the Town. The Town seeks costs of its cross-claim against Mr. Grand. Mr. Grand did not participate at the trial and neither did he provide any Costs Submissions. Mr. White and the Town provided Costs Submissions in writing which I have reviewed together with my Reasons for Judgment and Supplementary Reasons for Judgment. Here are my reasons on costs.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
[3] The court’s determination of costs is governed by s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act[^1] and by r. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure[^2]. Section 131 provides for the general discretion to fix costs. Rule 57.01 provides guidance as to the exercise of that discretion by enumerating certain factors that the court may consider when assessing costs.
[4] In 394 Lakeshore Oakville Holdings Inc. v. Misek[^3], Perrel J. summarized the purposes of costs orders as follows,
Modern costs rules are designed to advance five purposes in the administration of