r v. Perron, 2010 ONSC 6368

CITATION : Langelier v. Perron, 2010 ONSC 6368 COURT FILE NO.: 07-29104 DATE: 2010-11-19 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: GARY LANGELIER v. GLEN PERRON AND 1541021 ONTARIO INC. BEFORE: CRANE J. COUNSEL: Mr. K. Millikin, for the Plaintiff Mr. D. Collins, for the Defendants COSTS ENDORSEMENT [ 1 ] The defendants made two Rule 49 offers. Each is more favourable than the judgment.

The first offer is to the plaintiff dated September 9, 2008, the second is January 8, 2009. [ 2 ] The first portion of the trial was whether the plaintiff was entitled to be a shareholder of the defendant corporation; the second portion of the trial was whether the Vine reports or the Horsley critique would prevail.

The plaintiff failed to succeed on any issue. [ 3 ] The financial chaos by each party in their dealings removed the atmosphere for an agreed assessment of claim beyond their initial attitude of trust. [ 4 ] The plaintiff’s claim to a positive net worth was only should he have succeeded within the action. Given the result, the plaintiff’s ability to pay costs seems problematic.

However, the defendants’ are entitled to costs of the action and do seek them. [ 5 ] The chaos in the business relationship was 50 percent the responsibility of the defendant, (perhaps more so, as he was the “business partner”). [ 6 ] In the exercise of my discretion pursuant to s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57, I conclude that justice may only be done by awarding the costs of the action to the defendants. [ 7 ] The defendants will have partial indemnity costs. [ 8 ] The Bill of Costs submitted by the defendants is reasonable as to time and hourly rate. [ 9 ] The plaintiff in his submissions does not raise an issue on either times or rates. [ 10 ] I allow fees, rounded, at $65,000.00, exclusive of taxes.

The disbursements claimed other than one item are not disputed. They are reasonable. [ 11 ] The disputed item is the account of the Vine Group for the services of Christine Minelli and Eveline Reid, as reduced and submitted in a total of $52,600.00 (from $70,673.15). [ 12 ] The submission of plaintiff’s counsel is for a reduction in the defendants’ Bill of the Vine Group disbursement by not less than 50 percent. The argument is that each of the parties to this litigation and their initiating business dealings required the Vine forensic assessment and accounting. I agree.

[ 13 ] The portion of the Vine invoice representing preparation and attendance at trial is in the cause between the parties.

The defendants were successful at trial. [ 14 ] The particulars of the Vine disbursement is at tab 4 of the Defendants’ Submissions on Costs. [ 15 ] I take a broad view and make an allocation for litigation support of 25 percent ($70,000 x .25 = $17,500). [ 16 ] The reduction is granted through the following calculation; Total invoice $52,000.00 Less 25 % $13,000.00 Difference $39,000.00 Reduction at 50% $19,500.00 Disbursement allowed in Bill of Costs: $52,000 - $19,500 = $32,500.00 Total disbursements claimed: $55,426.27 Less disallowed -$19,500.00 Allowed $35,926.27 [ 17 ] I fix the costs of the defendants in the sum of ($65,000 + $35,926.27) $100,926.27 plus applicable taxes. ___________________________ CRANE J.

DATE: November 19, 2010 CITATION : Langelier v. Perron, 2010 ONSC 6368 COURT FILE NO.: 07-29104 DATE: 2010-11-19

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: GARY LANGELIER v. GLEN PERRON AND 1541021 ONTARIO INC. BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice D. S. Crane COUNSEL: Mr. K. Millikin, for the Plaintiff Mr. D. Collins, for the Defendants COSTS ENDORSEMENT CRANE J. DATE: November 19, 2010