COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-10

DATE: 20210721

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: TD Auto Finance (Canada) Inc., Plaintiff

AND:

Winnie M. Nabbosa also known as Winnie Mubeezi Nabbosa, Defendant

AND:

8866228 Canada Inc, operating as Mercedes-Benz Brampton, Angus Robertson, Khai Zheng and Yuecheng Lyu, Third Parties

BEFORE: Coats J.

COUNSEL: Ryan McConaghy, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Winnie M. Nabbosa, Self-Represented

Sumeet Dhanju-Dhillon, Counsel for Third Party, 8866228 Canada Inc., operating as Mercedes-Benz Brampton

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

Background:

[1] On April 21, 2021, I granted the Plaintiff summary judgment. I provided for written submissions on costs. I have received and reviewed the following:

i. Costs Submission of the Plaintiff;

ii. Bill of Costs from the Plaintiff; and

iii. Costs Outline of the Third Party, 8866228 Canada Inc., operating as Mercedes-Benz Brampton (“Third Party”).

[2] I received no responding costs submissions from the Defendant. Her costs submissions were due 30 days from April 21, 2021. Nothing has been received from her.

[3] In my endorsement of April 21, 2021, I granted the Plaintiff summary judgment on a TD Auto Finance Conditional Sales Contract. The Contract was assigned to the Plaintiff. The Judgment was for $69,604.11 plus interest from November 28, 2018 at 6.99 per cent. I made it clear in my April 21, 2021 endorsement that the Judgment related only to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant and that I made no determination in the Third Party Claim.

Position of the Parties:

[4] The Plaintiff seeks costs on a full indemnity basis. The Plaintiffs submit that it is entitled to full indemnity costs in accordance with section 8(g) of the TD Auto Finance Conditional Sales Contract. The Plaintiff claims costs in the total amount of $9,936.13.

[5] The Third Party seeks costs on a substantial indemnity scale in the total amount of $6,040.98 or on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $4,027.32. The Third Party states that it’s counsel attended the Motion to ensure that the Defendant did not make any allegations that led to an adverse finding against the Third Party. The Third Party filed an Affidavit in the Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion to confirm that the vehicle was delivered.

Analysis:

[6] The Plaintiff is entitled to costs. The Plaintiff was entirely successful.

[7] In terms of the scale of costs, section 8(g) of the Contract provides for the Defendant to pay costs on a full indemnity basis when remedies are pursued under the Contract based on the Defendant’s default. Therefore, I determine that the Plaintiff is entitled to costs on a full indemnity basis.

[8] In terms of the amount of costs claimed by the Plaintiff, I have considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The matter was important to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff received Judgment on the Contract. The matter was complex. As set out in my endorsement of April 21, 2021, the Defendant claimed several defences and the Plaintiff had to address each. The matter involved four court attendances. The multiple court attendances were caused by the Defendant as detailed in my April 21, 2021 endorsement. The Plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly rate is reasonable, and the time spent on the file is appropriate.

[9] In regard to the costs claimed by the Third Party, in my view, these costs are best addressed in the Third Party Claim. The Third Party attended at the court dates to observe and monitor. The Third Party’s counsel was not involved in the argument of the Motion. My April 21, 2021 endorsement did not provide for the Third Party to serve and file costs submissions. It specifically provided that I was not making any determination in the Third Party Claim.

Conclusion:

[10] The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff costs fixed in the total, all-inclusive sum of $9,936.13.

[11] The Third Party’s costs related to this motion shall be dealt with in the Third Party Claim.

Coats J.

Date: July 21, 2021