Wellman v. TELUS Communications Co., 2025 ONSC 3863
Court and Parties
Court File No.: CV-08-00360838-CP00
Date: June 27, 2025
Court: Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Plaintiff: Avraham Wellman
Defendants: TELUS Communications Company, Tele-Mobile Company, and TELUS Communications Inc.
Before: E.M. Morgan
Counsel:
- For the Plaintiff: Peter Jervis, Golnaz Nayerahmadi, and Sarah Fiddes
- For the Defendants: Andrew Borrell and Zohaib Maladwala
Heard: Cost submissions in writing
Costs Endorsement
[1] The Defendants moved for the third time to amend certification of this class action in a way which would reduce the number of certified common issues and make the class action aspect of the claim less encompassing for the Plaintiff and class. They did not succeed. The Plaintiff deserves his costs.
[2] Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a Bill of Costs showing partial indemnity costs of $150,185.52, all inclusive. Defendants’ counsel submit that the amount is too high, that it reflects over-lawyering, and that too many lawyers, students, and clerks worked on the Plaintiff’s side of the motion. Defendants’ counsel has not submitted a Bill of Costs or Costs Outline of their own.
[3] Both sides cite case law that appear to make their point. The Defendants seem to be unable to find one-day motions where the partial indemnity costs are at the level sought by the Plaintiffs, while the Plaintiffs seem able to show that there are motions where the costs awarded for a similar length motion areeven higher. Needless to say, no two motions are identical in either complexity or importance to the parties, so comparisons are only so useful.
[4] Rule 57.01(1)(0.b) provides that the amount of costs sought by the successful side should not be disproportionate to that sought by the unsuccessful side, and should not take the unsuccessful party by surprise. That leads me to observe that the Defendants have not provided me with what is usually the most useful comparator, and the one thing that will demonstrate whether their clients would be surprised at the quantum sought by the Plaintiff: the Defendants’ own costs. Without the Defendants’ costs to compare with the Plaintiff’s, the Defendants’ objection is “no more than an attack in the air”: United States of America v. Yemec, para. 54; Risorto v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., para. 10.
[5] Plaintiff’s counsel invested considerable time and effort into the motion, and that investment has paid off. I am not inclined to argue with or to pick apart what went into their success.
[6] I will take this opportunity to observe, however, that Ms. Nayerahmadi’s cross-examination of the Defendant’s deponent, Mr. Quick, was itself deserving of a costs award. The cross-examination was to the point, not overly aggressive but authoritative and well crafted, and resulted in the witness conceding all of the points that the Plaintiff’s side needed to make its case. In the Plaintiff’s cost submissions, it is noted that much of the billable time in this matter was related to Ms. Nayerahmadi’s participation; I can only say it was worth every penny.
[7] Rounding off the Plaintiff’s cost figures for the sake of convenience, the Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff costs of the motion in the amount of $150,000, inclusive of all fees, disbursements, and HST.
Date: June 27, 2025
E.M. Morgan