Court File and Parties
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: IMAX CORPORATION, Applicant
AND:
VINCENZO GUZZO and CINÉMAS GUZZO INC., Respondents
BEFORE: Paul B. Schabas J.
COUNSEL: Christopher J. Rae and Tina Cody, for the Applicant Jean Claude Rioux and Danielle J. Ralph, for the Respondents
HEARD: In writing
Costs Endorsement
1On February 2, 2026, I granted IMAX’s application to enforce a personal guarantee against the respondent, Vincenzo Guzzo: IMAX Corporation v. Guzzo et al., 2026 ONSC 621. At the conclusion of my decision, I invited costs submissions if the parties were unable to agree. Those costs submissions have now been received.
2IMAX submits it should be awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis up to September 4, 2025, when it submitted a Rule 49 Offer, and full indemnity costs thereafter, in the total amount of $177,247.22.
3I agree that IMAX is entitled to costs on an elevated scale. The Personal Guarantee provided that IMAX would be entitled to legal fees on a solicitor and client basis if it was required to commence proceedings to enforce it. While courts may depart from such a requirement if there is “good reason not to do so” (Stern v. Moeinifar, 2025 ONSC 1705), there is no such reason in this case.
4Another ground for an elevated award is IMAX’s offer to settle the application, dated September 4, 2025, in exchange for payment of $1,883,201.14 all-inclusive. This is somewhat less than the $2,094.842.55 owing to IMAX as of January 15, 2026, and which was awarded to IMAX on this application. The usual effect of a Rule 49 Offer of this kind is to award substantial indemnity costs following the date of the Offer. However, as IMAX was already entitled to substantial indemnity costs, in order to give effect to the objective of the Rule IMAX seeks full indemnity following September 4, 2025.
5Additionally, the applicant submits that the respondents’ position had no merit, as I found in my Reasons for Judgment. This, however, is not a ground for awarding elevated costs.
6Nevertheless, the amount sought is high having regard to the scope of the record and the issues. I agree with the respondents’ counsel that this was a “simple and uncomplicated” application, and that a matter of this kind might reasonably be expected to be litigated somewhat less expensively. Indeed, some of the respondents’ complaints about time spent and rates charged have validity. However, the respondents insisted on cross-examining IMAX’s affiants, and took other positions, including that a trial was necessary after previously agreeing to an application, which added costs unnecessarily. Mr. Guzzo is a sophisticated businessman, and he would reasonably have expected to face a large costs award from such an application, and that his conduct would have increased those costs.
7Under the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, s. 131(1), there is broad discretion in determining costs. Subrule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, lists factors to be considered. In addition, the court should have regard to the principle of proportionality and seek to balance the indemnity principle with the objective of facilitating access to justice.
8The overall objective is to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the particular circumstances: Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.).
9The awarding of costs is not an exact science. As the overarching principle is that costs must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, the court need not engage in an exact measure or detailed analysis of the dockets: Boucher, at para. 26; Harley v. Harley, 2023 ONSC 4611, at paras. 34-35; Bender v. Dulovic, 2023 ONSC 4753, at paras. 24-25; Persampieri v. Hobbs, 2018 ONSC 368, at para. 33, citing Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier (2002), 21 C.C.E.L. (3d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4; Brophy v. Harrison, 2019 ONSC 4377, at para. 15, citing Apotex Inc. v. Egis Pharmaceuticals (1991), 4 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.).
10Ultimately, my task is to fix an amount in costs that is fair and reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, including what the unsuccessful party ought to have reasonably expected to pay.
11In my view, the appropriate award of costs is to take the amount sought on a substantial indemnity basis, $163,334.09, including HST and disbursements, and discount it by approximately 10% to reflect a more reasonable amount. I therefore award costs to the applicant in the amount of $145,000.00, including HST and disbursements.
Paul B. Schabas J.
Date: April 10, 2026