Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00624205

DATE: 20220718

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: DR. MILE SAVIC, Plaintiff

– and –

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF ONTARIO, Defendant

BEFORE: Justice E.M. Morgan

COUNSEL: Carlin McGoogan, for the Plaintiff

Michelle Gibbs, for the Defendant

HEARD: Costs submissions in writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] The Defendant succeeded in having the action dismissed on a summary judgment motion. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant pursued proceedings against him in bad faith. In the motion, the Defendant argued that the Plaintiff raised no viable cause of action and, even if the cause of action were theoretically possible, it could never be proved due to an assortment of immunities and admissibility rules that render the action frivolous and vexatious.

[2] In fact, this is the second motion that the Defendant has brought. The first was never argued as it was adjourned by the Defendant at the Plaintiff’s request. The Plaintiff then amended his pleading to add new allegations and a new cause of action. The Defendant then issued a new motion to dismiss. The upshot of that is that the Defendant had costs thrown away on the first motion, but likely had some costs savings on the second motion as a result of work done on the first.

[3] Counsel for the Defendant seeks costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $59,338.05 and disbursements of $2,624.19, including HST. This does not strike me as excessive given the legal complexity and lengthy factual history of the matter. However, the Plaintiff objects on the grounds that it is substantially more than the partial indemnity costs of $32,227.32 and disbursements of $299.82 set out in his Bill of Costs.

[4] Suffice it to say, that it is easier and more efficient to make unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith than it is to refute them. A review of the Defendant’s Bill of Costs shows that in order to properly respond and put to rest the Plaintiff’s allegations, three different lawyers and one law clerk spent time over more than two years reviewing the Defendant’s voluminous complaint files that accumulated from their investigations and proceedings against the Plaintiff. In alleging that during this 10-year history of proceedings the Defendant had misused its authority, the Plaintiff put forward a claim which by its very nature required an extensive review by Defendant’s counsel. Rule 50.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits me to take this factor into account in exercising my discretion over fixing costs.

[5] With this context in mind, I am not inclined to question the number of hours that Defendant’s counsel put into refuting the Plaintiff’s claim. They did what it took to defeat the action, and I do not see anything so glaring or out of line in their costs requests to prompt me to start picking away at or arguing with that success. I acknowledge that the Plaintiff appears to have spent significantly less in pursing in addressing the Defendant’s motion, but all I can say is that it shows in the result.

[6] For the sake of convenience and in order to give the Plaintiff a small discount on the costs awarded against him, I will round down the Defendant’s request.

[7] The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant costs in the amount of $60,000, inclusive of all disbursements and HST.

Morgan J.

Date: July 18, 2022