Gratton-Masuy Env. Tech. v. BMEC, (2003) 170 O.A.C. 388 (DC)

JudgeLane, Lax and Power, JJ.
CourtSuperior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
Case DateMay 01, 2003
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(2003), 170 O.A.C. 388 (DC)

Gratton-Masuy Env. Tech. v. BMEC (2003), 170 O.A.C. 388 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] O.A.C. TBEd. MY.005

Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. (d.b.a. Ecoflo Ontario) and Waterloo Biofilter Systems Inc. v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission

(217/02)

Indexed As: Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. et al. v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission (Ont.)

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Lane, Lax and Power, JJ.

May 1, 2003.

Summary:

The Building Materials Evaluation Com­mission (BMEC) issued Authorizations approving the applicants' on-site wastewater treatment systems. The BMEC subsequently amended the Authorizations by way of two resolutions. The applicants applied for judi­cial review of the BMEC's decision.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported at 161 O.A.C. 208, allowed the application, quashed the BMEC's resolutions and remitted the matter to the BMEC for rehearing. The applicants delivered a bill of costs on a substantial indemnity scale, claim­ing $124,667.93. In an endorsement on costs, the court ordered that costs be paid to the applicants on a partial indemnity scale. The applicants claimed costs on a partial in­demnity scale in the amount of $113,017.43.

The Ontario Divisional Court fixed the applicants' costs at $25,681.93.

Administrative Law - Topic 9165

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Practice - Costs for or against tribunal - The applicants were substantially suc­cessful on an application for judicial re­view of a decision of the Building Mater­ials Evaluation Commission (BMEC) - The respondent challenged the applicants' claim for costs relevant to the proceedings before the BMEC on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to award any costs relevant to proceedings before an ad­ministrative tribunal - The Ontario Divi­sional Court agreed that it had no jurisdic­tion to award costs relevant to proceedings before an administrative tribunal - See paragraph 14.

Practice - Topic 6921

Costs - General principles - General - The Ontario Divisional Court stated that the decision in Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier (Ont. C.A.) "is not simply one of the factors to be considered along with a combination of factors. It is more than that. The case stands for the proposition that the award must 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'. This is a fundamental concept in fixing or assessing costs. The amount at which costs are to be fixed is not simply an arithmetic function dependent on the number of hours worked and the hourly rates employed but, rather, the party pay­ing the costs should be subjected to an order which is fair and predictable. In other words, the party required to pay costs must not be faced with an award that does not reasonably reflect the amount of time and effort that was warranted by the proceedings" - See paragraph 17.

Practice - Topic 6923

Costs - General principles - Power to award or fix costs - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9165 ].

Practice - Topic 7061.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Counsel fees - Hourly rates - Successful applicants claimed rates of $310, $320 and $350 per hour for senior counsel and $205 and $225 per hour for junior counsel - The fees, other than the counsel fee, had been claimed at the maximum or "up to" amounts allowed under the partial indemni­ty scale of the Costs Grid - The Ontario Divisional Court held that the hourly rates claimed for senior and junior counsel were too high - The "up to" or maximum hourly rates, and the counsel fees set out in the Costs Grid, were not intended as an every day standard - Rather, the upper limit was meant to be an upper standard for the most complicated of cases with the most ex­perienced of counsel appearing - The court concluded that the appropriate hourly rates for fees for senior and junior counsel, other than the counsel fee, were $250 and $150 respectively - See paragraphs 23 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

Rathé v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board (Ont.) et al. (2002), 166 O.A.C. 161 (Div. Ct.), agreed with [para. 14].

Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier et al., [2002] O.A.C. Uned. 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Lac des Milles Lac Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] O.T.C. 713 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 17].

Jhaj v. York University, [2002] O.T.C. 24 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

Pagnotta v. Brown, [2002] O.T.C. 588 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

TransCanada Pipelines v. Potter Station Power Limited Partnership et al., [2002] O.T.C. Uned. 359 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 25].

Counsel:

K. Scott McLean and Y. Monica Song, for the applicants;

Leslie McIntosh and Troy Harrison, for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

This matter was heard before Lane, Lax and Power, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. The following supplementary endorse­ment on costs was released by the Divisional Court on May 1, 2003.

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 15 ' 19, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 22 de agosto de 2022
    ...264 D.L.R. (4th) 557 (Ont. Div. Ct.), Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission (2003), 170 O.A.C. 388 (Div. Ct.), Moon v. Sher (2004), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 440 (Ont. C.A.), Leonard v. Zychowicz, 2022 ONCA 212, Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) ......
  • Andersen et al. v. St. Jude Medical Inc. et al., (2006) 208 O.A.C. 10 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 3 de outubro de 2005
    ...Ct.), refd to. [para. 26]. Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. et al. v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission (Ont.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 388 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Lau et al. v. Bayview Landmark Inc. et al., [1999] O.T.C. 220 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40]. Nantais v. Tel......
  • Ellis v. MacPherson, (2005) 246 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211 (PEICA)
    • Canada
    • 18 de janeiro de 2005
    ...(C.A.), refd to. [para. 43]. Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. et al. v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission (Ont.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 388 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Toronto (City) v. First Ontario Realty Corp. (2002), 59 O.R.(3d) 568 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43]. Bouch......
  • Baca v. Tiberi, 2018 ONSC 7282
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 5 de dezembro de 2018
    ...52. [24] Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. (c.o.b. Ecoflow Ontario) v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission, [2003] 170 O.A.C. 388, [2003] O.J. No. 1658 (Div. Ct.) at para. [25] Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario), [2004] 71 O.R. (3d) 291, 188 O.A.C. 201 (C.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Andersen et al. v. St. Jude Medical Inc. et al., (2006) 208 O.A.C. 10 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 3 de outubro de 2005
    ...Ct.), refd to. [para. 26]. Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. et al. v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission (Ont.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 388 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Lau et al. v. Bayview Landmark Inc. et al., [1999] O.T.C. 220 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40]. Nantais v. Tel......
  • Ellis v. MacPherson, (2005) 246 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 211 (PEICA)
    • Canada
    • 18 de janeiro de 2005
    ...(C.A.), refd to. [para. 43]. Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. et al. v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission (Ont.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 388 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Toronto (City) v. First Ontario Realty Corp. (2002), 59 O.R.(3d) 568 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43]. Bouch......
  • Baca v. Tiberi, 2018 ONSC 7282
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 5 de dezembro de 2018
    ...52. [24] Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. (c.o.b. Ecoflow Ontario) v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission, [2003] 170 O.A.C. 388, [2003] O.J. No. 1658 (Div. Ct.) at para. [25] Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario), [2004] 71 O.R. (3d) 291, 188 O.A.C. 201 (C.......
  • Healy v. Pilot Insurance Co., [2003] O.T.C. 1089 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • 17 de novembro de 2003
    ...Ct.), refd to. [para. 51]. Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. et al. v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission (Ont.) (2003), 170 O.A.C. 388 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier et al., [2002] O.A.C. Uned. 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54]. Authors and W......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 15 ' 19, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • 22 de agosto de 2022
    ...264 D.L.R. (4th) 557 (Ont. Div. Ct.), Gratton-Masuy Environmental Technologies Inc. v. Building Materials Evaluation Commission (2003), 170 O.A.C. 388 (Div. Ct.), Moon v. Sher (2004), 246 D.L.R. (4th) 440 (Ont. C.A.), Leonard v. Zychowicz, 2022 ONCA 212, Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT