Bell (Re)
Because the appellant succeeded on appeal, the court held the appellant was entitled to costs throughout and ordered that the previously agreed figure of $20,000 for costs below be adopted; settlement offers and unrelated creditor events were irrelevant to the costs determination.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2015 ONCA 19
- Parties
- Appellant: Your Legal Business Partner Inc.; Respondent: msi Spergel Inc.; Proposed Debtor/subject of Proposal: Thomas Albert Botly Bell
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 15 January 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal (bankruptcy/proposal) / Court of Appeal Costs Endorsement on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; costs below awarded to appellant.
- Legal Topics
- Costs Award, Appeal, Settlement Offer Relevance, Registrar in Bankruptcy Costs, Superior Court Costs
- 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
Your Legal Business Partner Inc.
Appellant
msi Spergel Inc.
Respondent
Thomas Albert Botly Bell
Proposed Debtor/subject of Proposal
Procedural Posture
Appeal (bankruptcy/proposal) / Court of Appeal Costs Endorsement on Appeal From Superior Court of Justice
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to costs below following success on appeal
- 2 Whether a settlement offer referenced by the respondent is relevant to costs on appeal
- 3 Whether the agreed amount for costs below should be adopted
Ratio Decidendi
Because the appellant succeeded on appeal, the court held the appellant was entitled to costs throughout and ordered that the previously agreed figure of $20,000 for costs below be adopted; settlement offers and unrelated creditor events were irrelevant to the costs determination.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; costs below awarded to appellant.
Orders
- Costs below are ordered payable to the appellant in the sum of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T.
- The previously fixed costs of the appeal remain as ordered when judgment was rendered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Bell (Re) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2015-01-15 Neutral citation 2015 ONCA 19 Docket numbers C57921 Judges Laskin, John Ivan; MacFarland, Jean Louise; Lauwers, Peter D. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Bell (Re), 2015 ONCA 19 DATE: 20150115 DOCKET: C57921 Laskin, MacFarland and Lauwers JJ.A. BETWEEN IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPOSAL OF THOMAS ALBERT BOTLY BELL OF THE CITY OF TORONTO, IN THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO Arlindo Aragao, for the appellant, Your Legal Business Partner Inc. Sean N. Zeitz, for the respondent, msi Spergel Inc. Heard: June 25, 2014 Released: August 1, 2014 On appeal from the decision of Justice D. M. Brown of the Superior Court of Justice, dated January 31, 2013. COSTS ENDORSEMENT [1] The submissions of counsel with respect to costs have been received. [2] The costs of the appeal were fixed by the court at the time judgment was rendered. Submissions were not requested in relation to that order. The only issue upon which submissions were sought were the costs below – those before the Registrar in Bankruptcy and those before the appeal judge in the Superior Court. [3] Prior to this appeal, counsel had agreed that those costs – payable to the respondent at that point because of its success – would be fixed in the sum of $20,000. [4] In the results below, the appellant in this court had been successful before the Registrar in Bankruptcy and the respondent in this court had been successful in the Superior Court. [5] In my view, there is nothing particularly unique about this case in the sense that a no costs order would be appropriate. [6] The appellant has succeeded in this court and accordingly should be entitled to its costs throughout. The settlement offer referenced by the respondent in its submissions is irrelevant to the issue before this court. So too are its submissions in relation to events involving a creditor of the appellant. [7] In our view, there is no reason why the appellant should not be entitled to its costs below in view of its success in this court. Further, there is no reason to fix a different amount from the figure to which the parties agreed prior to the hearing of this appeal. [8] Accordingly, costs below are ordered payable to the appellant in the sum of $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T. “John Laskin J.A.” “J. MacFarland J.A.” “P. Lauwers J.A.”