Zuccarini v. Zuccarini, 2025 ONSC 2871
Court and Parties
Court File No.: CV-20-84343
Date: 2025/05/13
Court: Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Plaintiffs (Moving Parties):
Dores Zuccarini (Giamberardino), Dino Zuccarini and Giovanni (“John”) Zuccarini
Defendants (Responding Parties):
Anthony Zuccarini, Domenica Zuccarini, The Estate of Landino Zuccarini, Pretorial Co. Ltd. and Hollington Co. Ltd.
Before: Sylvia Corthorn
Counsel:
Kathleen McDormand and Meagan Jennings, for the Plaintiffs
Raymond Gouin and, as counsel, Pierre Champagne, for the Defendants
Heard: In writing
Endorsement
[1] In February 2025, the court released its decision on the plaintiffs’ motion for an order removing the defendants’ lawyers of record: Zuccarini v. Zuccarini, 2025 ONSC 1042 (“the Ruling”). At the conclusion of the Ruling, the court addresses the delivery of written submissions related to costs (i.e., in the event the parties were unable to resolve the issue of costs of the motion).
[2] In sub-paragraph 152(a) of the Ruling, the court ordered that “[t]he parties submissions shall be limited to a maximum of ten pages (excluding any bill of costs) [and the] plaintiffs’ reply submissions shall be limited to a maximum of five pages”. In sub-paragraph 152(f), deadlines were set for the delivery of the parties’ respective submissions, including the plaintiffs’ reply submissions.
[3] The parties did not resolve the issue of costs of the motion. By April 22, 2025, the parties had exchanged and filed their respective costs submissions. The written materials filed by the parties do not comply with sub-paragraph 152(f) of the Ruling:
The plaintiffs’ submissions are in the form of a record. The materials in the record are tabbed, but the record does not comply with the requirement pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. Reg. 194, for the pages to be sequentially paginated. The substantive written submissions are 10 pages. The ‘record’ includes 176 pages, with materials at Tabs 1-10. There is no index to the record. Tab 10 is an eight-page costs outline.
The defendants’ responding submissions are also in the form of a record, are comprised of 155 sequentially-numbered pages; include substantive submissions that are 10 pages long; and include materials at Tabs A-M. The ‘record’ is indexed and the tabbed materials include case authorities upon which the defendants rely. Tab C is a two-page bill of costs.
The plaintiffs’ reply submissions are also in the form of a record. The substantive portion of the reply submissions is five pages long; the record is comprised of 26 pages in total; the materials attached to the substantive submissions are not indexed; and the pages in the record are not sequentially numbered.
[4] The parties required leave of the court to file materials in excess of the quantity of materials permitted pursuant to the Ruling. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants requested leave in that regard. The court’s order regarding written costs submissions was clear; the court did not intend for the parties to file a total of close to 300 pages of materials.
[5] With both parties having filed materials in breach of the court’s order, the court is left with two options: (a) reject the existing materials and request that the parties file materials that comply with the court’s order; or (b) order that the issue of costs be addressed at an oral hearing and based on the materials filed. In light of the detailed approach taken by the parties to the issue of costs, I order that the determination of costs be made based on the materials filed and a two-hour oral hearing.
[6] The parties shall schedule a two-hour hearing regarding costs on a date that is convenient to all counsel. Counsel for the parties shall communicate with the court’s administrative staff to schedule the event.
[7] The parties are prohibited from filing any further materials on the issue of costs of the motion without first obtaining leave of the court to do so.
Sylvia Corthorn
Released: May 13, 2025