Webb v. Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 973
The application judge erred by failing to analyze the application of cost principles to the facts and by awarding MTCC costs (87% of substantial indemnity) that exceeded a reasonable partial indemnity award; the Court of Appeal varied the quantum to MTCC to $25,000 and varied Bell ExpressVu’s award to $3,300, both...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C43574
- Parties
- Applicant (appellant): David Webb; Applicant (appellant): Diann Webb; Respondent: Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 973; Respondent: Bell ExpressVu
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Order Dated January 20, 2005
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; costs awards varied
- Legal Topics
- Costs Assessment, Partial Indemnity, Substantial Indemnity, Quantum of Costs, Appeal
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
David Webb
Applicant (appellant)
Diann Webb
Applicant (appellant)
Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 973
Respondent
Bell ExpressVu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Superior Court of Justice Order Dated January 20, 2005
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application judge erred in principle by failing to apply cost assessment principles to the facts
- 2 Whether the quantum awarded to MTCC exceeded a proper partial indemnity award and thus approached substantial indemnity
- 3 Whether the quantum awarded to Bell ExpressVu was disproportionate to its participation
Ratio Decidendi
The application judge erred by failing to analyze the application of cost principles to the facts and by awarding MTCC costs (87% of substantial indemnity) that exceeded a reasonable partial indemnity award; the Court of Appeal varied the quantum to MTCC to $25,000 and varied Bell ExpressVu’s award to $3,300, both inclusive of disbursements and GST, and ordered the appellants’ costs of appeal against Bell ExpressVu in the amount of $1,000 inclusive.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; costs awards varied
Orders
- Set aside quantum of costs awarded to Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 973 and vary quantum to $25,000 inclusive of disbursements and Goods and Services Tax
- Vary quantum of costs awarded to Bell ExpressVu to $3,300 inclusive of disbursements and Goods and Services Tax
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Webb v. Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 973 Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2005-11-28 Docket numbers C43574 Judges Cronk, Eleanore Ann; Armstrong, Robert Patrick; Lang, Susan Elizabeth Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20051128 DOCKET: C43574 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: DAVID WEBB and DIANN WEBB (Applicants (Appellants)) – and – METRO TORONTO CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 973 (Respondent (Respondent in Appeal)) BEFORE: CRONK, ARMSTRONG and LANG JJ.A. COUNSEL: Timothy Pinos for the appellants Patricia M. Conway for Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 973 Robert E. Blair for Bell ExpressVu HEARD & RELEASED ORALLY: November 24, 2005 On appeal from the Order of Justice Susan G. Himel of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 20, 2005. ENDORSEMENT [1] In determining the costs entitlement of the respondents, the application judge directed herself to the relevant legal principles, rules of court and related jurisprudence regarding the assessment of costs. However, her reasons contain no analysis of the application of these principles to the facts of this particular case, save for the expression of her conclusion that the costs awarded by her on a partial indemnity basis in respect of each respondent were “fair and reasonable”. In our view, this was an error in principle. [2] The reasons of the application judge indicate her intention to award costs to both respondents on a partial indemnity scale. In the case of the respondent Metro Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 973 (“MTCC”), however, the quantum of the costs awarded was equal to 87% of the substantial indemnity costs of the corporation. The effect of this costs disposition, therefore, was to award to this respondent costs that exceeded a reasonable partial indemnity bill in that the amount of the award approached a bill calculated on the substantial indemnity scale. On this basis, the quantum of the application judge’s costs award in favour of the respondent MTCC must be set aside. [3] In the case of the respondent Bell ExpressVu, we see no error in the application judge’s award of costs in its favour. However, the quantum of the award is disproportionate to the extent of this respondent’s participation in this proceeding. In this sense, the award made by the application judge cannot be said to be fair and reasonable. [4] In these circumstances, we would allow the appeal and vary the quantum of the costs awarded to the respondent MTCC to the total amount of $25,000 and to the respondent Bell ExpressVu to the total amount of $3,300, in both cases inclusive of disbursements and Goods and Services Tax. [5] The appellants do not seek costs against the respondent MTCC in respect of this appeal. They are entitled to costs of the appeal as against the respondent Bell ExpressVu in the amount of $1,000, inclusive of disbursements and Goods and Services Tax. “E.A. Cronk J.A.” “Robert P. Armstrong J.A.” “S. E. Lang J.A.”