Court File and Parties

Date: 2024-09-16 Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Mario Parravano, Plaintiff And: The City of Richmond Hill, Ontario, Don Guy and Keith Chambers, Defendants

Before: Parghi J.

Counsel: Lenard Kotylo, for the Plaintiff Tal Letourneau, for the Defendants

Heard: June 19, 2024

Costs Endorsement

[1] In my Endorsement of July 4, 2024, I granted the Defendants’ motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194 and ordered that the Statement of Claim be struck, without leave to amend, on the basis that it discloses no reasonable cause of action. In the alternative, I would have granted the Defendants’ motion under Rule 21.01(3)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194 and ordered that the action be dismissed as an abuse of process of the court. The parties were unable to work out the costs issue between themselves and have therefore provided me with written submissions on the issue. This is my ruling on costs.

[2] In exercising my discretion to fix costs under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43, I may consider the factors enumerated in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194. Those factors include the result achieved, the amounts claimed and recovered, the complexity and importance of the issues in the proceeding, the principle of indemnity, the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, and any other matter relevant to costs.

[3] In the recent case of Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 587, the Ontario Court of Appeal restated the general principles to be applied when courts exercise their discretion to award costs. The Court held that, when assessing costs, a court is to undertake a critical examination of the relevant factors, as applied to the costs claimed, and then “step back and consider the result produced and question whether, in all the circumstances, the result is fair and reasonable”. The overarching objective is to fix an amount for costs that is objectively reasonable, fair, and proportionate for the unsuccessful party to pay in the circumstances of the case, rather than to fix an amount based on the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant.

[4] Applying these principles here, I find it appropriate to award the Defendants an amount slightly higher than their costs on a partial indemnity basis. The Defendants were entirely successful in their motion. They had to do a fair amount of research to address the numerous purported causes of action pleaded by the Plaintiff. The work was wisely allocated among the team members. The work done was proportionate to the task and of great assistance to the court. The total amount they seek in costs is reasonable. For all of these reasons, it is appropriate to grant them their costs, both on the motion and the underlying action, which is now struck as a consequence of their success on the motion.

[5] The Defendants note, rightly, that certain actions taken by the Plaintiff tended to prolong or complicated the proceedings. In particular, the Plaintiff maintained the appropriateness of his various causes of action all the way until the hearing, and then, in oral argument, conceded for the first time that malicious prosecution was not properly pleaded. He offered to subsume the remaining purported causes of action (harassment, threats, family division, damage to reputation) under the banner of a new cause of action of “bad faith,” to abandon the claim for punitive damages, and no longer name the two individual Defendants. Had the Plaintiff made these concessions prior to the hearing, he would likely have narrowed the issues for the hearing considerably and reduced costs for the other side. Regrettably, it appears that he did not grapple with the merits of the Defendants’ motion until the hearing itself.

[6] The Plaintiffs claim $22,330.92 in partial indemnity costs for the action, including the motion to strike, and inclusive of HST and disbursements. On a substantial indemnity basis, this number would be $32,788.12. I do not think substantial indemnity costs are warranted overall. However, I do agree that the Plaintiff’s approach to the motion had the unfortunate but inevitable consequence of driving up costs unduly for the Defendants. It is appropriate that they receive some indemnification of those costs. I therefore order the Plaintiff to pay the Defendants $24,000.00 in costs, inclusive of HST, within 30 days.

Parghi J. Date: September 16, 2024