Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-19-00619987-0000 Court File No.: CV-20-00644233-0000 Date: 2021-02-17 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: STEDFASTS INC. Plaintiff

• and - DYNACARE GAMMA LABORATORY PARTNERSHIP Defendant

Counsel: Jason Bogle for the Plaintiff Breanna Needham for the Defendant

Heard: In writing

Perell, J.

Reasons for Decision - Costs

[1] This is a costs decision of a motion to strike a pleading because it did not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure. The background to the motion is as follows:

a. In this action, which was commenced in 2019, Stedfasts Inc. sues Dynacare Gamma Laboratory Partnership (“Dynacare”), which is a medical laboratory services company with its head office in Brampton, Ontario. Stedfasts is a courier service that transports medical samples and medical specimens to and from Dynacare’s laboratory.

b. In late 2019, pursuant to rules 21.01(1)(b), 21.03(d) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Dynacare moved for an order striking Stedfasts’ Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, without leave to amend on the basis that this Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and on the basis that the pleading was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. In a further alternative, relying on rules 21.01(3)(d) and 25.11, Dynacare sought an Order to strike over 120 paragraphs of Stedfasts’ pleading.

c. On November 18, 2019, I struck out the Amended Statement of Claim with leave to deliver an amended pleading for a breach of contract claim. [2]

d. On July 21, 2020, Stedfasts delivered a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim.

e. Then there was correspondence between counsel for the parties, and on September 11, 2020, Stedfasts served a revised Amended Statement of Claim.

f. On October 21, 2020, Dynacare served a Notice of Motion to strike the revised Amended Statement of Claim. This pleading was the fourth iteration of a Statement of Claim for Stedfasts’ legal grievance.

g. On December 22, 2020, I granted Dynacare’s motion and made several directions to remedy several procedural irregularities in the action.

h. I struck Stedfasts’ Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety. I granted leave for Stedfasts to deliver the Amended Statement of Claim annexed as Schedule “A” to my Reasons for Decision. [3]

[2] Dynacare seeks costs of $9,972.52, all inclusive. This request is very fair and reasonable. Indeed, in the circumstances, the request was modest. The revised Amended Statement of Claim was non-compliant. It was understandable and appropriate that Dynacare moved to have it struck, and although Stedfasts was for a second time granted leave to amend, Schedule “A” to my Reasons for Decision settled the dispute about the pleadings and Dynacare was in a position to plead its defence to a properly pleaded Statement of Claim.

[3] Shamelessly, Stedfasts, however, requests that it be awarded costs of $13,544.25, all inclusive, for its success on the motion or in the alternative that there be no order as to costs.

[4] Stedfasts accuses Dynacare of conduct tantamount to bad faith conduct causing delay. There is no merit in that accusation.

[5] I am not persuaded by any of Stedfasts’ arguments, and given its own claim for $13,544.25, the fairness and reasonableness of Dynacare’s, the successful litigant’s, claim of $9,972.52 is demonstrated.

[6] I therefore award Dynacare costs of $9,972.52 payable within 30 days.

Perell, J. Released: February 17, 2021