Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-593282 DATE: 20201221 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

ROSE DONATELLI-VENNERI, MICHAEL VENNERI, PROFESSIONAL COUNSELLING SERVICES AND COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE INC. Appellants

-and-

STERN LANDESMAN CLARK LLP Respondents

BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.

APPEARANCES: Rose Donatelli-Venneri and Michael Venneri, in person for the appellants Paul Stern, in person for the respondent

READ: December 21, 2020

COSTS endorsement

[1] The respondents were successful in the appeal. They beat their offer to settle although the compromise offered was small.

[2] In their written and oral argument, the appellants made unsupported allegations against the respondents of grave misconduct and lack of ethics. They behaved appallingly during the hearing as discussed in my endorsement dated November 30, 2020 reported at 2020 ONSC 7356.

[3] The appellants suffered a serious loss on the merits of their lawsuit with the insurer long before they retained the respondents to try to set aside the default judgment that had been granted against them. But the appellants will not move on and instead continue litigating in an expanding circle of targets to blame for the perceived injustice done to them by others long ago.

[4] In my view, costs for this misadventure should not have been incurred by the respondents. While I understand the appellants’ upset and sense of injustice, this type of litigation behaviour, misdirecting their anger and blame, is reprehensible and must stop. The respondents did not cause the criminal charges that were brought against the appellants or their loss of the litigation with the insurer. Moreover, the respondents warned the appellants that their motion to set aside the default judgment was unlikely to succeed- actually, that chances of success were “bleak”- and that they were incurring costs unnecessarily. To blame them now and to heap such nasty allegations on them is a misuse of the civil litigation process.

[5] While ostensibly arguing an appeal from the assessment, the appellants were actually seeking vindication for their entire course of conduct in the underlying litigation. The appeal proceeding was conducted vexatiously - with an ulterior motive to right the perceived historic wrong.

[6] I have reviewed the respondents’ costs outline. While they are self represented, all work docketed was counsel work. I also accept that time spent by a service provider who bills based on time is time not spent on billable work.

[7] The appellants submit that as self-represented litigants, the respondents should not receive any costs and that the costs claimed are excessive. They point to duplication where more than one timekeeper was engaged in a matter. In their challenges to hearing times, they make no allowance for preparation, attendance, waiting time, and subsequent de-briefing.

[8] I have reviewed the costs outline submitted and find the rates and times requested are reasonable and within the reasonable contemplation of a party opposite who makes the number and type of claims made in this appeal.

[9] The appellants are therefore jointly and severally liable to pay the respondents their costs of the appeal on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $20,000 all inclusive.

F.L. Myers J. Date: December 21, 2020