CITATION : Bank of Montreal v. Cheryl Zaffino et al, 2013 ONSC 4782 COURT FILE NO.: 1337-2010 DATE: 2013/07/16 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO RE: Bank of Montreal (Plaintiff) - and- Cheryl Zaffino and Pascal Zaffino aka Pat Zaffino (Defendants) BEFORE: Justice H. A. Rady COUNSEL: Tony Van Klink, for the Plaintiff John D. Leslie, for the Defendants HEARD: Costs Submissions received in writing June 11 and 19, 2013 COSTS ENDORSEMENT [ 1 ] On May 28, 2013,

summary judgment in favour of the bank against Mr. Zaffino was granted. Mr. Van Klink seeks costs of the action, including the motion, on a partial indemnity basis totalling $21,991.01 inclusive of disbursements and HST. A bill of costs and supporting time dockets were provided for my consideration. [ 2 ] Mr. Leslie for the defendant recognizes that the plaintiff is entitled to its costs but submits that because there were no discoveries or cross examinations, the costs sought are excessive.

He suggests $15,000.00 plus disbursements and HST. [ 3 ] It bears commenting that there is really very little separating the parties on costs. Mr. Van Klink’s fee component of costs is $18,830.00, some $4,000.00 more than that suggested by Mr. Leslie. [ 4 ] In my view, the sum sought by Mr. Van Klink is a reasonable one. In my reasons for judgment, I noted that the defendant had raised several defences including non est factum and misrepresentation. At the hearing of the motion only the improvident sale issue was argued.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff had to be prepared to meet those other defences. [ 5 ] I also note that Mr. Van Klink handled most of the work on the file himself so there is little or no duplication of effort. [ 6 ] In the circumstances and bearing in mind the criteria in Rule 57.01, the plaintiff shall have its costs of $21,991.01. “ Justice H. A. Rady” Justice H.A. Rady Date: July 16, 2013