Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CV-22-459-00
Date: 2025-04-08

Between

Lakehead District School Board
Plaintiff
Counsel: J. Lester

-and-

Anna Mauro o/a 807 ISC Thunder Bay
Defendant
Counsel: Anna Mauro (personally)

Heard: April 2, 2025, via Zoom at Thunder Bay
Justice: H. M. Pierce

Reasons for Costs of Summary Judgment Motion

[1] The plaintiff claims that it was entirely successful in its summary judgment motion and therefore claims substantial indemnity costs of $26,032.98 (inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST). The plaintiff contends that it served an offer that entitles the plaintiff to elevated costs.

[2] The defendant submits that she made efforts to resolve the Board’s complaint, but the plaintiff was not interested in receiving royalties and did not produce evidence of its copyright. The defendant also submits that the costs claimed are excessive.

[3] The plaintiff was not wholly successful in that it was not awarded punitive damages as claimed. Although it sent a “cease and desist” letter to the defendant, and made efforts to resolve the issue, it did not serve an offer as contemplated by Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[4] I agree that the costs claimed on a substantial indemnity scale are excessive in that they exceed the amount of the judgment awarded. They are not proportional to what was in issue.

[5] The damages awarded fall within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims court. Although the plaintiffs also obtained an injunction to protect their copyright and an order to deliver up the offending goods, relief which is not available from the Small Claims Court, the fact remains that this was a seasonal operation that realized modest revenues. Furthermore, there is no reprehensible conduct by the defendant that warrants elevated costs.

[6] Costs are in the discretion of the court. They are a summary proceeding and not a precise mathematical exercise. Although the plaintiff was required to move for a further and better affidavit of documents from the defendant and undertook examinations for discovery, the motion for summary judgment was not complex.

[7] Disbursements related to laser printing are not claimable. Claims for clerk time are limited to law clerk functions and do not encompass secretarial functions such as printing and filing. Supervision of law students falls within counsel’s overhead and is not claimable as costs from the opposing party.

[8] The plaintiff shall have its costs from the defendant on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $8,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.

“original signed by”
H. M. Pierce

Released: April 8, 2025