2013 ONSC 1375, 2013 ONSC 1375

CITATION : Suvajac v. A-1 Siding and Windows Inc., 2013 ONSC1375 COURT FILE NO.: 11-32097 DATE: 2013/03/05 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: ) ) Goran Suvajac ) ) ) Peter Anderson, Counsel for the Applicant ) Applicant ) ) - and - ) ) ) A-1 Siding and Windows Inc., A-1 Siding and Windows (Niagara) Ltd., Mary Ojvan (aka Maria Ojvan) and Jakov Ojvan ) ) ) John A. Crossingham, Counsel for the Respondents ) Respondents ) ) ) ) RULING ON COSTS GLITHERO J. 1 . For written reasons released January 14, 2013 I gave judgement for the applicant.

I directed that the applicant would have 21 days in which to provide written submissions on costs, and that the respondents would have 15 days after receipt of the submissions of the applicant plaintiff during which to provide costs submissions. In each case those timelines were subject to any extensions being requested and granted. 2 . Written submissions from counsel for the applicant were received on January 31 st . No submissions have been received from counsel for the respondents, nor has there been any request for an extension. 3 .

The applicant requests fees on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $9,320 or on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $6,058. These are based on 31 hours spent by Mr. Anderson and .2 hours spent by his assistant. The evidence here as to the financial dealings and profitability of the respondents would have required time to investigate and digest. In my view the amount of time spent was reasonable. In my opinion the hourly rates of $300 on a substantial indemnity scale or $195 on a partial indemnity scale are reasonable. 4 . Disbursements in the amount of $ 855.85 appear reasonable.

5 . In terms of settlement efforts, counsel for the applicant offered in writing to try and get instructions to resolve the matter for 50% of the outstanding amount, on an all- inclusive basis. The respondents did not even reply. This of course is not an offer to settle, but it was at least an indication of a desire to try and be reasonable. 6 . As I found in my ruling, the behaviour of the respondents was oppressive and unfair. In my opinion it would be unjust to require the applicant to shoulder legal cost such as would result if costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale.

The application was to enforce an entitlement already won in an earlier proceeding. It should not now be diluted as a result of costs incurred because of further unfair conduct by the respondents. 7 . The position of the applicant as to costs has gone unchallenged. 8 . For these reasons, I fix costs on a substantial indemnity scale in the amount claimed of $12,203.43 , payable to the applicant by the respondents jointly and severally. Dated at Oshawa this 5th day of March, 2013. ----------------------------------------------------- C. Stephen Glithero