Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00092570-0000 (Ottawa) DATE: 2024May06 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: DESPINA GRIMBOS, Plaintiff AND: OCM AUTO FINANCING GROUP LTD. and WILLIAM (“BILL”) O’REILLY, Defendants

BEFORE: Justice Thomas Carey

COUNSEL: Kimberley Sebag, for the Plaintiff Kyle Van Schie, for the Defendants

HEARD: January 18, 2024

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] The parties disagree on costs related to a motion to strike. Costs are discretionary to the court.

[2] The dispute involves the reason the motion did not proceed. The plaintiff says it was abandoned. The defendants assert their motion was made unnecessary (moot) by the plaintiff’s amendments.

[3] I am not persuaded that the defendants’ motion was rendered moot by the amendments to the claim. The plaintiff took reasonable and timely steps to deliver her amendments. There were aspects of the Motion to Strike not addressed by the plaintiff’s amendments.

[4] It is clear to me that the defendants made a strategic decision not to proceed with the motion and effectively abandoned it. The plaintiff’s position that each party bear its own costs was a reasonable one, left open to right prior to argument.

[5] As set out by Kershman J. in TPG Technology Consulting Ltd. v. Canada (Industry), 2012 ONSC 1092, “claims for costs are one of the few ways in which the parties can attempt to remind the other party of the consequences of their tactical decisions.”

[6] The plaintiff is an individual who has lost her employment and income. She is seeking redress from her former employer, a financing company with clearly deeper pockets and the ability to withstand lengthy and costly litigation. Their decision to pursue costs was clearly strategic. The plaintiff is entitled to her costs which I fix at $2500, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Honourable Mr. Justice Thomas Carey Date: May 6, 2024