Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00660172
DATE: 20210506
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: PARKLAND CORPORATION, Applicant
-and-
SRAA INC., Respondent
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
COUNSEL: John C. Wolf and Brendan Jones, for the Applicant Howard D. Gerson, for SRAA Inc. and 1064110 Ontario Ltd.
READ: May 6, 2021
SUPPLEMENTARY COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] This endorsement applies as well to the motion brought by the applicant against 1064110 Ontario Ltd. under Court File No.: CV-21-659846.
[2] In my costs’ endorsement dated May 4, 2021, I made note of the respondents’ failure to deliver Costs Outlines. Counsel subsequently contacted me and advised that this happened through oversight.
[3] I have now reviewed the respondents’ Costs Outlines.
[4] The delivery of Costs Outlines relates only to the quantum rather than the scale of costs. I no longer need to make any inference about the quantum of the respondents’ costs and I do not do so.
[5] The respondents’ Costs Outlines reflect substantially lower costs for the respondents than are shown in the applicants’ Costs Outlines.
[6] There are two apparent differences. First, the respondent has only reported Mr. Gerson’s time. The applicants billed for both Mr. Wolf and Mr. Jones. Second, Mr. Wolf’s hourly rate is substantially higher than the rate provided for Mr. Gerson.
[7] Although only Mr. Gerson’s time is included in the Costs Outline, Mr. Frymer appeared with him at the motion on the record for the respondents. It is apparent from the documents in evidence that Mr. Frymer did much of the “solicitor’s” work on the file leading up to the proceedings. His time is not included in the Costs Outlines although much of what he did would seem to have been within the normal scope of costs sought on motions such as this.
[8] As to the rates billed, while Mr. Wolf’s rate is substantially higher than the rate provided for Mr. Gerson, Mr. Wolf’s rate is within the reasonable range in the marketplace. Clients are entitled to retain counsel of their choice. As long as the rates sought are reasonable considering relevant factors, such as the seniority of counsel and the complexity of the matter, a differential in rates is not a basis to reduce the costs payable to the successful party.
[9] In all, the respondents’ Costs Outlines do not provide information that would lead me to change my view that the costs sought by the applicant were reasonable in the circumstances under Boucher and the factors set out at para. 19 of my prior endorsement on costs.
F.L. Myers J.
Date: May 6, 2021