Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-595443 DATE: 20231128

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Mark Waters, Plaintiff AND: Richard Furlong and Furlong Collins, Defendants

BEFORE: Carole J. Brown J.

COUNSEL: Jeffrey Radnoff, Counsel, for the Plaintiff John D. Campbell, Counsel, for the Defendants

HEARD: March 8-10, 2023

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] The defendant was wholly successful in this three-day alleged solicitor negligence action arising from an alleged wrongful dismissal. The defendant now seeks his costs of the action on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $51,299.61 all-inclusive.

[2] Costs are intended to generally reimburse the successful party in part or, in some limited cases, in whole for the costs of the proceeding. They are to be reasonable, proportional and within the reasonable expectations of the parties, so far as can be ascertained. In awarding costs, the judge must have these considerations in mind, as well as the factors set forth at Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[3] Costs are at the discretion of the court.

[4] The lawyers were experienced. There were two senior plaintiff’s counsel in attendance during the trial. The defendant’s lawyer was experienced. His rates were discounted pursuant to LawPro’s stipulated fees. Mr. Campbell, the defendant’s lawyer, did the majority of the work on the file himself. He delegated to his law clerk work related to motions, undertakings, requests to admit and issuance of summonses, which I find appropriate.

[5] The plaintiffs argued that their costs of trial only amounted to $27,402.73, the security for costs award, ordered four years before trial, was only in the amount of $25,000 and these amounts should inform the parties’ expectations as regards the costs awarded for the trial.

[6] These are factors which are taken into consideration, as well as others. I do note that the security for costs amount was ordered at the court’s discretion four years prior to trial, and there is no evidence to indicate that they represented costs expectations at the time of trial. The plaintiff had two senior counsel present during the trial, which would also help to inform their expectations of costs awarded.

[7] The amount claimed in the action was $100,000 and would more appropriately have been brought under the summary proceedings rules. However, the plaintiffs chose to bring their action under the ordinary procedure.

[8] The issues were of importance to both parties. They were particularly important to the defendant and his professional reputation. The issues in the proceeding were of some complexity, dealing as they did with taxation issues.

[9] Having considered all of the factors relevant to awarding costs, I award costs to the defendant in the amount of $41,460 plus HST of $5,389.80, and disbursements of $4,449.81, for a total of $51,299.61, which I find to be reasonable, proportional and within the expectations of the parties.

C.J. Brown J.

Date: November 28, 2023