Weinmann Electric Ltd v. Niagara Falls Bridge Commission CITATION : 2013 ONSC 5236 COURT FILE NO.: 53868/12 DATE: 2013-08-13 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Weinmann Electric Ltd, plaintiff AND: Niagara Falls Bridge Commission, defendant BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay COUNSEL: Mr Kenneth Movat for the plaintiff; Mr Gary H. Enskat for the defendant ENDORSEMENT [ 1 ] The plaintiff moved successfully for production of documents [2013 ONSC 2805] and now asks for costs of approximately $22,000. The defendant submits that the parties should bear their own costs because the motion involved a novel point of law.

Furthermore, the plaintiff should not be indemnified in any event for the costs of cross-examining on affidavits. Finally, the plaintiff’s time expenditure was not reasonable. [ 2 ] I was given the decision of J.W. Quinn J., who in denying leave to appeal from my order, held that there were no conflicting decisions in the Superior Court including a recent one of his own. I agree with my colleague that our decisions had different results on different facts. There was no novel point of law.

The most just order would be an order for costs payable to the successful party within 30 days, as Rule 57.03(3) contemplates. [ 3 ] The defendant resisted production with much in the way of objection and little in the way of supporting evidence. The defendant’s position was unreasonable. The parties should bear their own costs of the cross-examinations on the affidavits.

Subject to that, the plaintiff should have its costs on a partial indemnity basis. [ 4 ] I think that $12,500, all inclusive, would reasonably have been contemplated and I order the defendant to pay that amount to the plaintiff within 30 days. ________________________________________ J.A. Ramsay J. Date: 2013-08-13