Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-15-83320-0000 DATE: 2023 01 06
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Sara Fatahi-Ghandehari Self-Represented, Assisted by R. Scocco Applicant
- and -
Stewart Wilson Self-Represented, Assisted by S. Chhina Respondent
- and -
Associated Bailiffs and Co. Ltd. Joseph Siracusa, Personal Representative
HEARD: In Writing
Reasons for Decision
LEMAY J
[1] This is a complicated case that I have been case-managing for a number of years. On December 1st, 2022, I released reasons that addressed the fees owing to the Bailiff that had seized property of the Respondent for the Applicant. I granted the Bailiff approximately eighty percent of the fees that he sought. It is now time to fix the costs of the proceeding to determine the Bailiff’s fees (“the Fees Proceeding”).
Positions of the Parties
[2] The Applicant seeks costs on the basis that she was successful in this proceeding. The costs that she seeks are in the sum of $12,700.00 plus HST.
[3] The Respondent agreed with the Applicant on certain issues in the Fees Proceeding. However, he took no real part in the argument during the proceeding and has not sought costs. As a result, I am of the view that the Respondent neither owes costs nor is entitled to costs.
[4] The Bailiff has not sought costs in this proceeding. Indeed, he has not provided any costs submissions at all. As a result, I am not prepared to award the Bailiff costs.
Analysis
[5] I start with the question of whether the Applicant was successful in this motion. Her original request was that the Bailiff should not be entitled to anything for storing the vehicles because he had improperly stored one of the cars and because he had not properly provided information on the storage costs to the Applicant.
[6] I rejected both of those arguments. Indeed, I found that the Bailiff was entitled to approximately eighty percent of the costs he had claimed. While I found that the value of the Ferrari had depreciated over the course of its storage time and that the Bailiff was responsible for some of that depreciation, I also found that the Applicant had an obligation to pay for the storage of the vehicles.
[7] In short, the Applicant had limited success in the Fees Proceeding. She obtained a rebate on some of the storage costs, but was obligated to pay the bulk of those costs. It was an outcome that was far less than what the Applicant sought.
[8] In my view, success on the Fees Proceeding was divided. Therefore, there will be no costs for this portion of the proceeding.
[9] I would add that the Applicant is not entitled to claim her costs for the Fees Proceeding from the Respondent or from any other party at any other stage in this litigation.
LEMAY J Released: January 6, 2023