CITATION: The Corporation of the Township of Clearview v. 12966344 Canada Inc., 2026 ONSC 3839
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CLEARVIEW
Applicant
– and –
12966344 CANADA INC. and ANGELINA WILLIAMS
Respondents
Matthew Hodgson, for the Township
Christine Carter, for 12966344 Canada Inc. and Angelina Williams
– and –
12966344 CANADA INC.
Applicant by Counterclaim
– and –
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF CLEARVIEW
Respondent by Counterclaim
Christine Carter, for 12966344 Canada Inc.
Matthew Hodgson, for the Township
HEARD: In writing
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Casullo J.
Overview
1On February 4, 2026, I dismissed the Township’s application for an injunction, granted the respondents’ cross application and ordered that a fill permit be issued forthwith.
2As the successful parties, the respondents are presumptively entitled to their costs. Pursuant to my direction, the parties have submitted written submissions on costs. Having reviewed same, what follows is my costs decision.
3The respondents seek the following categories of costs:
a. Application for Fee Permit
b. Township’s Application
c. Applicant’s Application
4The respondents seek disbursements of $94,399.05 including, inter alia, HM AERO’s invoice, Crozier Engineering’s invoice, and mortgage extension payments.
5All told, the respondents seek costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $251,898.20 or, partial indemnity costs in the amount of $201,915.05, both inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.
6Had it been successful, the Township would have sought partial indemnity costs of $20,195.07.
7There were no offers to settle.
Jurisprudence
8Costs should be fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the particular case under consideration. Costs are also in the absolute discretion of the court: see Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131(1). In conjunction with my discretion, I am to reflect on the factors set out in r. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.
9While the individual factors set out in r. 57 provide guidance when assessing and fixing costs, as Boswell J. held in Nesbitt v. Jeffery, 2018 ONSC 7285, at para. 15:
Regardless of the particular factors considered relevant by the court on any given assessment, it is now well-settled that the overarching principles to be observed in the exercise of the court’s discretion to fix costs are fairness, proportionality and reasonableness: see Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840; Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.); and Moon v. Sher (2004), 2004 CanLII 39005 (ON CA), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 440 (C.A.).
10When fixing costs, a judge should not conduct a line-by-line assessment, but rather should make a determination of what the services devoted to the action were: Apotex Inc. v. Egis Pharmaceuticals (1991), 1991 CanLII 2729 (ON CTGD), 4 O.R. (3d) 321 (Ont. Gen. Div.), at para. 16.
11Finally, in deciding what is fair and reasonable, the expectation of the parties concerning the quantum of a costs award is a relevant factor. This is so particularly with respect to the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.), at para 38.
Discussion
12This was a relatively complex matter. There were two fully argued applications, both of which required preparation.
13However, legal fees for the fill permit, the HM AERO, and Crozier invoices, and the mortgage extension payments, are not expenses directly incurred for the court proceedings. I concur with the applicant that these are not litigation-related, and not properly before me.
14With these figures backed out, the respondents seek costs of $59,700 plus HST on a partial indemnity basis, or $96,950 plus HST on a substantial indemnity basis, and disbursements of $1,193.68.
15There is nothing in the Township’s conduct relating to the applications that warrants a substantial indemnity costs order.
16Further, the costs sought are disproportionate. By virtue of the fact that the issues and parties are the same, there would be some duplication in the responding record and the counter-application record.
Disposition
17Taking the above into consideration, I find that a fair and reasonable costs award in these circumstances is $30,000 on a partial indemnity basis.
18Reasonable disbursements are $1,193.68.
19The respondents are awarded $31,193.68 inclusive of costs and disbursements.
Fill Permit
20Despite my order to issue the respondents a fill permit forthwith, by the time written submissions were due, the Township had not done so. The respondents submit that the applicant is in contempt of my order, and seek costs a substantial indemnity basis. The respondents also provided a draft permit for me to sign.
21The Township’s actions are post-judgment concerns, and therefore not properly before me.
CASULLO J.
Released: June 30, 2026