COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-2802
DATE: 2021 01 05
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: The Regional Municipality of Halton, Respondent/Plaintiff
AND:
F. Greco & Sons Limited o/a Greco Construction, Michael Greco, John Frank Greco, John Paul Greco, Sirron Systems Incorporated, Sirron Systems Inc., Sirron Group International, Sirron Electrical Contracting Corporation, David Allen Norris, Meehan’s Industrial Maintenance Ltd., Patrick Vincent Meehan, Jason Matthew Mote, Giulio (Julio) Cerelli, Canian Precision Machine Shop Limited, Wahan Aghian, Eli Ishkanian and Lisa Snowball, Appellants/Defendants
BEFORE: Conlan J.
COUNSEL: Mr. R. Rothstein for the Respondent/Plaintiff
Mr. J. Brown for the Appellants/Defendants, Sirron and Norris
ENDORSEMENT on costs
I. Introduction
[1] In this civil action, the Defendants, Sirron Systems Incorporated, Sirron Systems Inc., Sirron Group International, Sirron Electrical Contracting Corporation, and David Norris (“Norris”), collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Appellants”, appealed the decision of Master Mills made on November 28, 2019.
[2] The Plaintiff/Respondent, the Regional Municipality of Halton (“Halton”), commenced an action based on an alleged fraud scheme perpetrated by the Appellants. In the course of the action, Halton brought a motion to compel production of documents from a non-party - entities that had provided accounting services to the Appellants.
[3] The Master granted the motion and also ordered costs against the Appellants.
[4] The appeal to this Court was dismissed; the decision, dated December 1, 2020, is reported at 2020 ONSC 7409.
[5] The parties have been unable to resolve the issue of costs of the appeal, and written materials have been filed by each side.
[6] The successful party, Halton, seeks costs of $36,957.78 (full indemnity), or alternatively $33,262.00 (substantial indemnity), or further in the alternative $25,870.45 (partial indemnity).
[7] Halton submits that the conduct of the Appellants unnecessarily lengthened the duration and complexity of the appeal in that they (i) served their Notice of Appeal late and, thus, required a Court Order to extend the deadline, and (ii) then blatantly disregarded the Order of Justice Chozik to “take all necessary steps to ensure the appeal is scheduled and heard without delay”, and (iii) then, on the eve of the appeal hearing, at close to midnight, served a motion to adduce fresh evidence on the appeal, which motion was ultimately abandoned the next morning when this Court balked at the idea of entertaining it on such late notice.
[8] The Appellants do not dispute that Halton is entitled to some costs but submit that the amounts claimed are disproportionate. The Appellants have filed their own Bill of Costs showing a total of $10,195.60 on a partial indemnity scale.
II. Decision
[9] Without dispute, Halton, successful on the appeal, is entitled to some costs.
[10] I agree with counsel for Halton that the last-minute fresh evidence motion filed by the Appellants was absurd. I also agree that the Appellants did not prosecute the appeal with dispatch, as envisaged (more than that, actually) by the Order of Chozik J.
[11] Notwithstanding those observations, however, I elect not to award anything beyond the usual partial indemnity recovery of costs. In the end, I think that the quantum awarded herein meets the overall objective of being a fair, just, reasonable, and proportionate result.
[12] I will not “nickel and dime” Halton, however, as I see nothing unreasonable about the hourly rates or the time spent by its counsel on the appeal. The fact that the Appellants’ partial indemnity costs are apparently much lower than those of Halton is, with respect, more of a reflection of quality of product than it is a sign of something disproportionate being claimed by Halton.
[13] This Court will round the figure down to an even $25,000.00 and hereby orders that the Appellants shall pay that sum of costs to Halton within thirty (30) calendar days of January 5, 2021.
(“Original signed by”)
Conlan J.
Date: January 5, 2021