ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (CHATHAM)
COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-1116
DATE: 20260305
BETWEEN:
Dean Randall Weaver
Steven Pickard, for the Plaintiff/Responding Party
Plaintiff/Responding Party
- and -
James Bedford Robson
Eric Florjancic, for the
Defendant/Responding Party
Defendant/Moving Party
- and –
The Corporation of the Municipality of
Chatham-Kent
Third Party Defendant
Katherine Shand for the
Third Party
HEARD: In writing
COSTS DECISION
Justice E. ten Cate
[1] These reasons on costs follow my decision dated January 21, 2026.
[2] Subsection 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 grants the Court discretionary authority to award costs. Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 sets out the various factors that this Court may consider in addition to the result in the proceeding.
[3] The overall objective in awarding costs is to “fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in a particular proceeding, rather than an amount fixed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant”: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.), para. 26.
[4] The Defendant seeks his costs of the motion fixed on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $7,156.91 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
[5] The Plaintiff takes the position that any costs payable by him are the responsibility of the Third Party municipality because it breached an undertaking to refrain from taking a position on the motion and filed no materials, resulting in an adverse finding against him. He further submits that if the need for the motion was born of administrative error, then the municipality should bear the costs of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
[6] The Third Party takes the position that although it is a defendant in this action by way of a third party claim filed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff brought no claim against it. Additionally, it disputes that it gave an “undertaking” to take no position on motion, but that it consented to the motion brought by the Defendant and communicated its consent.
[7] My notes are consistent with the Third Party’s position – the only submission they made at the hearing was that they consented to the Defendant’s motion. No evidence was submitted by them, and no further statements were made.
[8] In my view, the Defendant was wholly successful on its motion to which the Third Party consented. While the Plaintiff alleges administrative error, he has not claimed such against the municipality; there is no pleading before the court which could form the basis for an award of costs against the municipality.
[9] I therefore award partial indemnity costs to the Defendant, payable by the Plaintiff, in the amount of $7,156.91 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 30 days of this order.
Justice E. ten Cate
Released: March 5, 2026
COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-1116
DATE: 20260305
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(CHATHAM)
BETWEEN:
Dean Randall Weaver
Plaintiff/Responding Party
- and -
James Bedford Robson
Defendant/Moving Party
- and –
The Corporation of the Municipality of Chatham-Kent
Third Party Defendant
COSTS DECISION
ten Cate J.
Released: March 5, 2026