Gluckstein v. Yu, 2020 ONSC 5565

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-5080-0000

DATE: 2020 09 16

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Gluckstein Personal Injury Lawyers P.C. Applicant

Hui Yu Respondent

BEFORE: Bloom, J.

COUNSEL: Jonah Waxman, for the Applicant

Maurice Benzaquen, agent for counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: September 16, 2020

E N D O R S E M E N T

1The Respondent sought an adjournment of his own motion on the ground that the counsel who had been working on the file had left the law firm retained, and newly instructed counsel was not ready to proceed.

2I am granting the adjournment on terms.

3This date had been set for a long motion, since October 10, 2019. Even at that time the Applicant complained of delay. Further delay is unacceptable.

4I am setting a new hearing date for the motion on December 31, 2020 at 10:00 am for 59 minutes as a short motion. That return date is peremptory to the Respondent. I am not seized with this motion.

5I am allowing the filing of no further materials, save for authorities, since the law may develop. However, allowing the filing of further other materials will risk aggravating the delay.

6I am aware that the Respondent has continually threatened the bringing of an application regarding the validity of an infant’s settlement allegedly related to the costs assessment ultimately in issue, but that application has not been commenced, and must, in my view, not further delay the hearing of the motion.

7As to costs, the endorsement of October 10, 2019 reserved costs of that appearance to today.

8In my view, the Applicant is entitled to costs of $4500 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and applicable taxes as costs thrown away; that sum is intended to include the costs entailed by the delays on October 10, 2019 up to and including today. It is a sum at approximately the full recovery level. That sum is payable within 30 days by the Respondent, failing which the Applicant may move on the December 31, 2020 return of the motion for its dismissal.

9In fashioning my order, I have had regard to the contention of the Respondent that a quantum of $ 2500 for costs was appropriate and to his offer of that amount plus HST. I have also considered the Applicant’s submission that that offer was made only this morning and that other terms were involved in the discussion of it. I have further considered the Applicant’s initial submission that more than $ 4500 was appropriate in costs.

10Finally, I should note that I have made my order, relying upon Rule 60.12 as a consequence of breach my order of October 10, 2019 (by the delay of the hearing of the motion) and also upon Rule 57.

Bloom, J.