432080 Ont. Ltd. v. Somra, (1999) 123 O.A.C. 312 (CA)

• Judge: Rosenberg, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: August 10, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 123 O.A.C. 312 (CA)

432080 Ont. Ltd. v. Somra (1999), 123 O.A.C. 312 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.A.C. TBEd. AU.022

432080 Ontario Limited, 157349 Canada Limited, Ottawa Algonquin Travel Corporation, James Lough, Claire Lough and Stephen Lough (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Khalid Somra, Ruth Bowlby, Executrix of the Estate of Arthur T. Bowlby, Heather Hutt, Carleton Travel Services Ltd. and Mary Sheffield (defendants/respondents)

(C32381)

Indexed As: 432080 Ontario Ltd. et al. v. Somra et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Rosenberg, J.A.

August 12, 1999.

Summary:

The successful appellants were awarded party and party costs on the appeal. The appellants appealed the assessment of costs. The respondents cross-appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Rosen­berg, J.A., allowed the appeal in part and dismissed the cross-appeal.

Practice - Topic 8332

Costs - Appeals - Costs of appeal - Cost of preparation of documents for use on appeal - An assessment officer reduced the suc­cessful appellant's costs for hours claimed by the solicitor Licandro, holding that his retainment was not absolutely necessary and reasonable, that Licandro was "asked to draft opinion letters for the client on the various potential issues for appeal", which was not a service in preparation for the appeal - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Rosenberg, J.A., held that the assessment officer erred in principle because he misap­prehended the nature of the work per­formed by Licandro - While Licandro's dockets referred to the preparation of "opinions", the actual memoranda were memoranda of law intended to assist in appeal preparation - The fact that Licandro was in another city or that he did not attend the appeal were not grounds for disallowing the work he performed to assist in the preparation of the factum and hearing of the appeal.

Practice - Topic 8332

Costs - Appeals - Costs of appeal - Cost of preparation of documents for use on appeal - An assessment officer reduced the suc­cessful appellant's costs for hours claimed by the solicitor Licandro, holding that his retainment was not absolutely necessary and reasonable, that Licandro was "asked to draft opinion letters for the client on the various potential issues for appeal", which was not a service in preparation for the appeal - The appellants appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal, per Rosenberg, J.A., held that the officer erred in principle in, inter alia, drawing an adverse inference from Licandro's absence from the as­sessment, at least on the issue of the use of the opinions/memoranda - On that issue the important information came from another lawyer, whose submissions were uncontradicted - See paragraph 7.

Practice - Topic 8362

Costs - Appeals - Appeals from taxation - When available - [See both Practice - Topic 8332 ].

Cases Noticed:

Eastwalsh Homes Ltd. v. Anatal Develop­ment Corp. (1995), 80 O.A.C. 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].

Counsel:

Derek A.J. D'Oliveira, for the appellants;

Nancy J. Tourgis, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard in Chambers, on August 10, 1999, by Rosenberg, J.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal, who released the following endorsement on August 12, 1999.