r v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 6148

CITATION: 620369 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Herman’s Building Centres v. Dunham, 2017 ONSC 6148 COURT FILE NO.: 11663/17 DATE: 2017/10/13 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: ) ) 620369 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Herman’s BuildingCentres ) ) ) Rachel Goerz, for the Plaintiff/Respondent ) Plaintiff/Respondent) ) - and - ) ) ) Chris Dunham ) ) ) Margaret A. Hoy, for the Defendant/Appellant ) Defendant/Appellant ) The Honourable Justice T. Maddalena DECISION ON COSTS [ 1 ] I heard this motion at Welland, Ontario on September 6, 2017. I rendered my endorsement on the motion on September 11,2017.

I have received costs submissions on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent. The costs submissions of the defendant/appellant were dueon October 10, 2017. Nothing was received by the court on that day. Submissions were received October 13, 2017 and are notconsidered in these reasons. [ 2 ] The plaintiff (respondent on motion) seeks costs on a substantial indemnity scale, fixed at $2,029.30 all-inclusive or, in thealternative, on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $1,588.60 all-inclusive. [ 3 ] The plaintiff/respondent was the successful party in the motion.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to costs. [ 4 ] Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure outlines the factors for consideration by the court in an award of costs. Further, inthe case of Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, , the court noted as follows at para.24:

In our view, the costs award should reflect more what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties rather than any exact measure of the actual costs to the successful litigant. [ 5 ] In para. 38, the court noted as follows: In deciding what is fair and reasonable, as suggested above, the expectation of the parties concerning the quantum of a costs award is a relevant factor …. [ 6 ] I have further reviewed and considered the bill of costs submitted by the plaintiff’s counsel.

I find the hourly rate of counsel, work done, and disbursements are all reasonable. [ 7 ] Considering those factors outlined in Rule 57.01(1) and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, I conclude that costs should be fixed and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in the amount of $1,588.60, payable within 30 days. Order Made [ 8 ] The following order is made: The defendant shall pay costs to the plaintiff fixed at $1,588.60 all-inclusive within 30 days. ___________________________ Maddalena J. Released: October 13, 2017 CITATION : 620369 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Herman’s Building Centres v.

Dunham, 2017 ONSC 6148 COURT FILE NO.: 11663/17 DATE: 2017/10/13

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: 620369 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Herman’s Building Centres Plaintiff/Respondent - and – Chris Dunham Defendant/Appellant DECISION ON COSTS Maddalena J. Released: October 13, 2017