Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00611921-0000 DATE: 20230117 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: SETTLEMENT LENDERS INC., Plaintiff AND: SERGIO GRILLONE and GRILLONE BEKIARIS LLP a.k.a. GRILLONE LAW FIRM, Defendants

BEFORE: VERMETTE J.

COUNSEL: Sean Lawler, for the Plaintiff Sergio Grillone, self-represented

HEARD: In writing

Endorsement as to Costs

[1] On November 4, 2022, I released an endorsement (2022 ONSC 6275) dismissing the motion of the Defendant Sergio Grillone.

[2] The parties were not able to agree on costs. The Plaintiff delivered costs submissions on November 18, 2022. The Defendants did not deliver any responding costs submissions within the time set out in the last paragraph of my endorsement. The Defendants were given a second opportunity to deliver costs submissions and were advised that if they did not do so by the new deadline, I would decide the issue of costs without their input. The Defendants have not delivered costs submissions.

[3] This is my decision on costs.

Position of the Plaintiff

[4] The Plaintiff seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive sum of $11,840.84. It states that the Plaintiff was successful on the motion and submits that costs should follow the event.

[5] The Plaintiff makes the following submissions in light of the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure:

a. all the work done was done by the appropriate counsel at the appropriate level of seniority, in a reasonable time;

b. the fees charged are lower than what would be expected by other counsel of similar seniority;

c. the Defendants should have reasonably expected to indemnify these costs given the result of this dispute;

d. the Defendants brought this motion seeking to set aside the Judgment of O’Brien J. dated July 22, 2019 (“Judgment”) more than 2.5 years after it was issued, which unnecessarily elongated this proceeding. The Plaintiff points out that I found in my endorsement that there was no explanation for most of the 2.5-year delay between Mr. Grillone becoming aware of the Judgment in September 2019 and the bringing of the motion to set aside the Judgment in March 2022;

e. the Defendants refused to admit that the service of various documents upon them was proper and effective, which further complicated this matter.

[6] The Plaintiff argues that it was put to considerable expense by having to review and address numerous points and issues in its response to the motion, including the different legal tests applicable to motions to set aside a consent judgment vs. a default judgment, the issue of the alleged forged affidavits of service, and an expert report that was not properly in evidence.

Discussion

[7] I have reviewed the Plaintiff’s costs outline. I find that the rates of the Plaintiff’s lawyers are reasonable and appropriate. They used partial indemnity rates that are 60% of actual rates. I also find that, in light of all the issues raised by Mr. Grillone on the motion, the time spent and the overall amount sought are generally reasonable. However, I will apply a small reduction to the amount sought to take into account potential duplication of work between the timekeepers involved.

[8] Taking the foregoing into account, as well as the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the reasonable expectations of the parties, I find that the fair and reasonable award of costs in favour of the Plaintiff is on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $10,500.00. In my view, this is an amount that Mr. Grillone should reasonably have expected to pay in the event that he was unsuccessful on the motion. Given that the motion was brought under Mr. Grillone’s name only (i.e. it was not brought by all the Defendants), Mr. Grillone is the party who is responsible for the costs of the motion. The costs are to be paid by Mr. Grillone to the Plaintiff within 30 days.

Vermette J. Date: January 17, 2023