Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-2255

DATE: 2022-06-28

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Royal Bank of Canada, Plaintiff

AND:

Graham Hogarth and Nicole Christine Lobb aka Nicole Lobb, Defendants

BEFORE: Coats J.

COUNSEL: Alexandra Tratnik, for the Plaintiff

Graham Hogarth and Nicole Lobb, Self-represented

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

Issue

[1] In my Endorsement of February 11, 2022, I provided for written submissions as to costs. Yesterday I received the following documents for my review and consideration:

a) Costs Submissions of the Plaintiff and Bill of Costs; and

b) Costs Submissions of the Defendants and Bill of Costs of the Defendants.

[2] These documents were filed earlier with Court Services Division; however, the documents were only provided to me yesterday.

[3] There were two motions before me on February 3, 2022 – the Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the Defendants’ cross-motion seeking to strike the affidavit of Kay Protacio, sworn November 8, 2001 and for disclosure.

[4] I granted the Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. I dismissed the Defendants’ motion.

Position of the Parties

[5] The Plaintiff is seeking costs in the amount of $6,084.13, which is the total of fees on a substantial indemnity basis including HST in the amount of $5,183.31, and disbursements in the amount of $900.82, inclusive of HST.

[6] The Defendants indicate that they incurred costs of $19,520.55. The Defendants state that they “are in the process of application to appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeals, and therefore defer all costs at this time.”

Analysis

[7] The Plaintiff is entitled to costs. The Plaintiff was wholly successful. The Plaintiff was granted summary judgment against the Defendant Graham Hogarth in the sum of $73,090.63 and in the further amount of $37,119.22. The Plaintiff was granted summary judgment against Graham Hogarth and Nicole Christine Lobb in the sum of $946.22. The Defendants’ motion was dismissed. There is no basis for the Defendants to be awarded costs.

[8] The Credit Line Agreement regarding the debt of $73,090.63 provides for costs on a solicitor-client or substantial indemnity basis. The Overdraft Agreement regarding the debt of $946.22 provides for legal fees on a full indemnity basis. It is appropriate that costs regarding these two debts be on a substantial indemnity basis.

[9] I have considered the factors set out in rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The hourly rate of counsel is reasonable. The time expanded is appropriate. The amount claimed for costs is proportionate to the amount of the judgment.

[10] I have considered that the Plaintiff’s costs submissions did not address what the Mastercard Agreement said about costs and therefore that costs on a partial indemnity basis are appropriate regarding this debt.

[11] I have also considered that Nicole Christine Lobb is only responsible, with Graham Hogarth for a debt in the amount of $946.22, less than one per cent of the total judgment.

[12] I therefore find that the Defendant Graham Hogarth shall pay to the Plaintiff costs fixed in the total amount of $5,500 and that the Defendant Nicole Christine Lobb shall pay to the Plaintiff costs fixed in the total amount of $50.

Conclusion

[13] The Defendant Graham Hogarth shall pay costs to the Plaintiff fixed in the total sum of $5,500. The Defendant Nicole Christine Lobb shall pay to the Plaintiff costs fixed in the total sum of $50.

Coats J.

Date: June 28, 2022