r v. Public Accountants, 2024 ONSC 155

CITATION: Anderson v. Alekozai, 2024 ONSC 155 COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-00554598-0000 DATE: 20240108 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: RHONDA ANDERSON, Plaintiff AND: SUHAIB ALEKOZAI, BEHZAD DALF-AJRESH, KARANPREET PARMAR and TORONTO TRANSIT COMMISSION, Defendants BEFORE: Justice A.P. Ramsay COUNSEL: Gail C. Wong and Tanzeela Ansari, for the Plaintiff J.C.

Rioux and Maggie Morgan, for the Defendants, Suhaib Alekozai and Behzad Dalf-Ajresh No one appearing for the Defendants, Karanpreet Parmar and Toronto Transit Commission HEARD: In Writing COSTS ENDORSEMENT [1] The defendants, Suhaib Alekozai and Behzad Dalf-Ajresh, seek their costs following a ten-day jury trial, which commencedon October 3, 2023. The plaintiff was a passenger on a TTC vehicle that was involved in an accident on July 7, 2014. The defendantswere the sole defendants remaining at the time of the trial.

They were entirely successful on the issue of causation and damages. [2] The defendants provided their costs submissions within the timeframe established by the court. The plaintiff has chosen notto make any submissions. [3] The defendants are seeking costs on a partial indemnity basis, inclusive of HST and disbursements, in the amount of$72,655.65. The costs legal fees and disbursements relate to two separate firms.

Each claim the following: Aviva Trial Lawyers Legal fees on a partial indemnity basis $5,386.50 HST $700.24 Subtotal $6,086.74 Disbursements $17,956.13 Total $24,042.87 Flaherty McCarthy LLP Legal fees on a partial indemnity basis $40,172.70 HST $5,222.45 Subtotal $45,395.15 Disbursements $3,217.63 Total $48,612.78 [4] Under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, costs are in the discretion of the court, subject to theprovisions of a statue or the rules of court.

In exercising its discretion, the court considers the factors enumerated in r. 57.01 of the Rulesof Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, which include the principle of indemnity, the reasonable expectations of the unsuccessfulparty, and the complexity and importance of the issues. The overall objective is to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the partyliable to pay costs to pay, rather than any exact measure of the actual costs to the successful party: Boucher v. Public AccountantsCouncil for the Province of Ontario (2004), (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.); Zesta Engineering Ltd. v.

Cloutier(2002), (ON CA), 21 C.C.E.L. (3d) 161 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4. [5] The legal fees sought by the defendants reflect what is fair, reasonable, and what the unsuccessful plaintiff should expect topay in the circumstances. In my view, the amount sought is also proportionate for a ten-day jury trial of moderate complexity withmultiple issues including liability, causation, and damages advanced at the time of the trial. At the commencement of trial, the plaintiffwas advancing claims for general damages, loss of competitive advantage, housekeeping and home maintenance expenses, and futurecost of care.

During the trial, the plaintiff abandoned certain claims including threshold. The statement of claim initially sought damagesin excess of $1,500,000. The jury awarded zero damages for the sole claim, housekeeping and home maintenance, which remained at the

end of the ten-day trial. [ 6 ] The action proceeded through pleadings, oral and documentary productions, defence medical examinations, mediation, pre- trial and trial before a jury in Toronto. The defendants admitted liability, which resulted in the action being dismissed against the co- defendants, Karanpreet Parmar and Toronto Transit Commission, on consent March 4, 2021. [ 7 ] Both accounts reveal the involvement of multiple lawyers, but no obvious duplication. The hourly rates charged appear reasonable. Both parties served offers to settle.

The defendants served an offer to settle on October 23, 2018, for a dismissal of the action. The plaintiff served an offer to settle dated September 18, 2023, for $500.00 in special damages, plus costs and disbursements. The defendants rejected the offer. [ 8 ] As for the disbursements, I have allowed $15,167.30 for the disbursement account submitted by Aviva Trial Lawyers.

I have disallowed the amounts claimed for transportation, investigator’s costs (with no explanation), and the filing fee for a motion (with no explanation as to the nature of the motion and if it was the subject of an order). [ 9 ] I have allowed $1,488.49 for disbursements submitted by Flaherty McCarthy LLP. I have disallowed amounts claimed for transportation and meal expenses. A.P. Ramsay J. Date: January 8, 2024