|
Civil Litigation - Costs - Adjudged by What Loser Wanted. Singh v. Air Canada
In Singh v. Air Canada (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a Small Claims Court appeal, this brought against a successful motion to strike the claim.
The court considers Small Claims Court costs, although here in an appeal context:[38] The appellant seeks partial indemnity costs in the amount of $9,625.00. Ordinarily, I would view this as excessive for an appeal of this nature. However, in the Small Claims Court, the respondent took the position that it was entitled to costs of $7,655.00, far in excess of the presumptive amount of $100 set out in r. 15.07, because there were “special circumstances,” including that the appellant acted “unreasonably” in resisting the motion to strike, that she failed to accept the respondent’s offer to settle (which entailed a dismissal of the action without costs), and that she “ought to have known better” because she apparently had some training as a paralegal, although she was not licensed as such. While the motion judge did not award the amount sought, she did order costs of $1800.00.
[39] The reasonable expectations of the losing party is a relevant consideration in determining costs, and the respondent’s aggressive and unforgiving stance on the issue of costs in the court below is an indication of its expectation of how the issue should be approached. In all the circumstances, I fix costs at $7,000.00, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, to be paid by the respondent to the appellant within 30 days. . Shannon v. Hrabovsky
In Shannon v. Hrabovsky (Ont CA, 2024) the Court of Appeal considers a costs issue, here where the court weighs the amount of costs sought by the losing side as a factor in costs awarded:[3] While this is a very large amount, the appellants’ own bill of costs is even higher: they sought over $150,000 in fees and disbursements for themselves, on a partial indemnity basis. Accordingly, they cannot object that the amount sought by the respondent is contrary to their own expectations of what would be fair and reasonable in the circumstances: see Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.), at para. 38. . Woods v. Timko
In Woods v. Timko (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considered a family law cost award, here influenced by the other side's costs request:[58] The father is entitled to costs of this appeal fixed at $15,000 ( all inclusive), which is a fair, reasonable and proportionate amount, given the complexities in this matter and in light of the fact that the mother was requesting $40,000 had she been successful. . Schuur v Sas
In Schuur v Sas (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court reflected a novel costs factor that I've started to observe, that of assessing the quantum of costs to the 'winner', in relation to what the 'loser' requested on their success:[43] The Applicant shall pay costs to Dr. Sas of $10,000, all inclusive, which is the amount she sought had she been successful.
|
