Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-20-00651475-0000; CV-20-00645977-0000

Date: 2025-10-10

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario

Re: Bruno Rosso, Applicant

And: Domenic Rosso also known as Tony Rosso, Carmelina Rosso also known as Carmela Rosso, Salvatore Rosso and Computershare Trust Company of Canada Societe de Fiducie Computershare du Canada, Respondents

And Re: Domenic A. Rosso, Applicant

And: Bruno Rosso, Nancy Rosso also known as Ignazia Rosso, and Salvatore Rosso, Respondents

Before: Parghi J.

Counsel:

• Jeffrey Radnoff, for the Applicant Bruno Rosso/Respondents Bruno Rosso and Nancy Rosso
• Kevin Richard and Leanne Gruppuso, for the Respondent/Applicant Domenic Rosso
• Philip V. Hiebert, for the Respondent Carmelina Rosso also known as Carmela Rosso
• Edward Marrocco and Olivia Eng, for the Respondent Salvatore Rosso

Heard: October 10, 2025 (in writing)

Costs Endorsement

[1] By Endorsement dated July 17, 2025, I dismissed Domenic Rosso's application to enforce an oral agreement and granted Bruno Rosso's application for partition and sale, together with related relief. I held that "Bruno, Salvatore, and Nancy Rosso were entirely successful in these proceedings and are accordingly entitled to their costs." I instructed the parties to work together to resolve costs within 30 days.

[2] The parties were unable to resolve costs. A timetable was set for the exchange of costs submissions, which I have now reviewed. I now issue this Endorsement on costs.

[3] 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, whether the conduct of any party tended to shorten or lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding, whether any step in the proceeding was improper, vexatious, or unnecessary, the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party, and any other matter relevant to costs.

[4] In Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 587, at para. 60, the Court of Appeal for Ontario 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".

Salvatore Rosso

[5] Salvatore seeks $35,739.08, inclusive of HST and disbursements, on a partial indemnity basis. He is entitled to that amount. In making this order, I note the following, having regard to the principles outlined above:

a. Salvatore was entirely successful in the application.

b. The issues were of great importance to the parties. The dispute over the property had spawned extensive and heated litigation over a period of many years.

c. Salvatore's costs are proportionate to the value of the property.

d. The issues were relatively complex, with several legal and factual issues in contest and a one-and-a-half day hearing.

e. The amount Salvatore seeks in costs is reasonable. His counsel team's overall costs, in terms of hourly rates and time spent, are reasonable. Indeed, the time spent by his counsel is significantly lower than the time spent by Domenic's counsel, which makes clear that the time incurred is well within the reasonable expectations of Domenic. His written materials and oral argument at trial were helpful to the court. He did not engage in any conduct that needlessly lengthened the proceedings.

[6] Domenic proposes that Salvatore be paid only half of the amount he claims. He identifies no principled basis for this position, based on either the Rules or the case law. I reject his position. The general rule is for the successful party to get their costs. Salvatore was a successful party, and he should get his costs.

Bruno Rosso and Nancy Rosso

[7] Bruno and Nancy seek $168,510.44 and $9,249.05, respectively, in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements. These amounts are on a substantial indemnity scale. Bruno and Nancy say that elevated costs are appropriate given Bruno's rule 49 offer to settle and Domenic's conduct during the litigation.

[8] I award Nancy her costs on a substantial indemnity scale. In making this order, I note the following, having regard to the costs principles outlined above:

a. Nancy was entirely successful in the application.

b. Involving Nancy in the litigation, and keeping her in it, was improper, vexatious, and unnecessary. The allegation against Nancy seems to have been that she knew about and was a party to Bruno's alleged fraudulent behaviour (discussed below). To that end, Domenic sought orders, including certificates of pending litigation, to restrain Nancy from dealing with unrelated properties that she owned. In oral argument before me, his counsel said not one word about Nancy. It is not clear to me why Nancy was brought into Domenic's application. It is not clear to me why she was kept in the application. Even on the eve of the hearing, or during the hearing itself, Domenic could have withdrawn his claims against her. He did not.

c. Nancy's costs are quite modest, and certainly well within Domenic's reasonable expectation. Domenic cannot reasonably expect to include respondents unnecessarily, keep them in the proceedings needlessly, and then not reimburse them for their (very modest) legal costs.

[9] I award Bruno his costs on a substantial indemnity scale. I note the following, having regard to the costs principles:

a. Bruno was entirely successful in the application.

b. The issues were of great importance to the parties, as discussed above.

c. Bruno's costs are proportionate to the value of the property.

d. The issues were relatively complex, as discussed above.

e. The amount Bruno seeks in costs is reasonable. His counsel team's overall costs, in terms of hourly rates and time spent, are reasonable. Indeed, the hourly rates charged by his counsel are significantly lower than those charged by Domenic's counsel, which underscores that they are reasonable in quantum and well within the reasonable expectation of Domenic. Likewise, the amount he seeks in costs is similar to what Domenic claims. His written materials and oral argument at trial were helpful to the court. He did not engage in any conduct that needlessly lengthened the proceedings.

f. Bruno made a rule 49 offer in November 2020 that would have resulted in the effective dismissal of Domenic's claim for specific performance of the alleged oral agreement, the property being sold, and Bruno's claim for an accounting being tried. The result of the applications was that Domenic's claim for specific performance was dismissed, an order for partition and sale of the property was granted, and the accounting was ordered. This result exceeded the rule 49 offer. Bruno is therefore entitled to his substantial indemnity costs from the date of the rule 49 offer onward, under rule 49.10.

g. Domenic's conduct toward Bruno during the litigation warrants a costs award on an elevated scale. Domenic sought awards for damages for Bruno's allegedly deceitful and malicious behaviour and said that Bruno's conduct caused him mental distress, humiliation, indignation, fear of reputation, and loss of faith in family. He alleged that Bruno made fraudulent misrepresentations that "deceitfully induced" Domenic to lend him money, had engaged in "attempted extortion tactics," "does not like to pay his debts", "has a history of being litigious, deceiving and conniving just to get his way", was "deceitful" and "calculating", "duped" his brothers, "made "willful, misleading and convincing promises, which were no doubt a basket of lies and fraudulent deception", "has a history of habitually taking and never giving back," and took advantage of Domenic's trust by "lying by, 'like a snake in the grass' calculating, deceitful and us[ing] trickery" on him. These rather hefty allegations were never made out. Unproven allegations of fraud "frequently attract awards on the higher scale. … because they are rooted in assertions of dishonesty and deceit and go to the heart of a person's integrity" (Manning v. Epp, [2006] O.J. No. 4239 (S.C.J.), at paras. 7-8). Notably, Domenic never retracted, resiled from, or softened any of these allegations. In my view, Domenic's unfounded allegations about Bruno's dishonesty and poor character warrant an award of elevated costs.

[10] Domenic proposes that Bruno be paid only half of the amount he claims. He identifies no principled basis for this position, based on either the Rules or the case law. I reject his position. Bruno was a successful party and should get his costs.

Costs Award

[11] I accordingly award costs to Salvatore of $35,739.08, to Nancy of $9,249.05, and to Bruno of $168,510.44. These amounts are inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes. They are to be paid within 30 days. In my view, this result is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

Parghi J.

Date: October 10, 2025