Court File and Parties

Court File Nos.: CV-21-006700440-0000; CV-22-00686470-0000 Date: 2024-06-05 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Maria Cristina Azevedo And: Everly L. Rumball and WTH Car Rental ULC and Royal & Sun Insurance Company of Canada

And Re: Maria Cristina Azevedo And: Kyle Murray

Before: J.T. Akbarali J.

Counsel: Alex Flesias, for the plaintiff/responding party Brigette A. Morrison, for the defendants/moving parties WTH Car Rental ULC and Kyle Murray Michael Courneyea, for the defendant/responding party Royal & Sun Insurance Company of Canada

Heard: May 30, 2024

Supplementary Endorsement

[1] On June 3, 2024, I released an endorsement in these actions granting the motions for summary judgment brought by the plaintiffs and addressing costs.

[2] I thereafter received an enquiry from counsel for the plaintiff WTH asking if I had inadvertently omitted to deal with WTH’s costs of the motion, as my reasons only addressed its costs of the action. This was indeed an inadvertent error, which I corrected by way of adding an addendum to my reasons and releasing them, also on June 3, 2024.

[3] On June 4, 2024, counsel for the defendant Royal wrote to enquire whether I had inadvertently made Royal jointly and severally liable for the defendant Murray’s costs, when Royal was not a party to the action against Murray. Although Royal had taken positions opposite in interest to Murray, it did so in the context of the summary judgment brought by WTH, in which Royal is a party. As a result of this second error, I released corrected reasons on June 4, 2024 to make clear that it was only the plaintiff who was responsible for Murray’s costs, which were ordered at $8,703.32 all-inclusive.

[4] I have now received an email from Mr. Sidiropoulos, counsel for the plaintiff, but who did not appear on the motion. He asks that I hold all costs orders in abeyance, and take written submissions on costs, claiming that Murray’s costs were the result of choices made by his counsel, who is also counsel to WTH. According to Mr. Sidiropoulos, the issues around this $8,703.32 costs award are complex and multifaceted. He levels accusations in his email to me of sharp practice by the moving party’s counsel.

[5] As I recorded in my original endorsement, I advised the parties in advance to upload their bills of costs or costs outlines to CaseLines before the hearing. All parties did so. At the hearing, I enquired whether further submissions on costs would be necessary, or whether I could, as is my practice unless there is some reason to deviate from it, proceed to review the costs outlines and make a costs determination once I had reached my decision on the merits. All counsel indicated that they were content with that proposal, which I then followed.

[6] The process I followed allows the parties to receive costs determinations more quickly, and at less expense. It is also efficient for me to address costs immediately after I address the merits of a proceeding. Given the substantial backlog in this court’s docket, when dates for long motions in civil proceedings are now unavailable until 2026 due to a lack of judicial resources, ensuring that this court’s resources are used efficiently is critical.

[7] I did not, as Mr. Sidiropoulos suggested in his email to me, subsequently change my cost decisions based on unilateral submissions from the other parties. Rather, I corrected obvious errors in my costs submissions when those were pointed out to me by the other parties. I did not require further submissions to do so.

[8] It is not appropriate for Mr. Sidiropoulos to email me to make allegations of sharp practice on the part of another counsel. If Mr. Sidiropoulos wishes to complain about the professional conduct of a colleague at the bar, he has options, but a complaint to me is not one of them.

[9] Moreover, to the extent he complains about Murray’s counsel declining to consent to his being added to the claim against WTH, that was an issue about which submissions were made at the motion. The plaintiff could have addressed it at that time, but she did not.

[10] Nor is it appropriate for Mr. Sidiropoulos to ask me to change my mind about costs (rather than to correct an obvious error or omission), especially after the plaintiff agreed to my proceeding to determine costs in the manner in which I did.

[11] I will not accept further submissions on costs. The costs order is as set out in my corrected endorsement.

Akbarali J.

Date: June 5, 2024