Court Denies Winning Plaintiff Costs Where Judgement was $16,000:
In Chin v. Beauty Express Canada Inc., 2023 ONSC 56, Justice Morgan had awarded the plaintiff $16,000 which represented 7.5 months notice.
When it came to assess costs, the Defendant had made a Rule 49 offer for $10,000. The Plaintiff apparently made no Rule 49 offer.
The plaintiff claimed that her substantial indemnity costs were $54,777.
Much of the trial time was taken up with claims by the Plaintiff of moral damages, all of which were denied .
In deciding to award no costs, the is what the judge said :
“[7] That said, the trial can be objectively characterized as an unfortunate waste of the parties’ resources. Taking into account the pre-trial, trial preparation, and trial time and resources theyeach invested into the matter, the quantity of damages is far outweighed by the legal fees. And that is to say nothing of the court time consumed by what turned out to be a rather small claim.
[8] Although Plaintiff’s counsel makes an argument about the importance of the case to the Plaintiff, and I have no doubt that it was indeed important to her, this size case is precisely whatSmall Claims Court is for. Pursing a claim in that court does not diminish its importance, but it does provide a more streamlined procedure appropriate to the monetary value of the case to theparties. Importantly, it also frees up Superior Court of Justice resources for claims that other courts cannot handle, making for a more efficient administration of justice.
But for the Plaintiff’s rather large overreach, the entire litigation would have been far more expeditiously and inexpensively pursued in Small Claims Court.”
In Chin v. Beauty Express Canada Inc., 2023 ONSC 56, Justice Morgan had awarded the plaintiff $16,000 which represented 7.5 months notice.
When it came to assess costs, the Defendant had made a Rule 49 offer for $10,000. The Plaintiff apparently made no Rule 49 offer.
The plaintiff claimed that her substantial indemnity costs were $54,777.
Much of the trial time was taken up with claims by the Plaintiff of moral damages, all of which were denied .
In deciding to award no costs, the is what the judge said :
“[7] That said, the trial can be objectively characterized as an unfortunate waste of the parties’ resources. Taking into account the pre-trial, trial preparation, and trial time and resources they each invested into the matter, the quantity of damages is far outweighed by the legal fees. And that is to say nothing of the court time consumed by what turned out to be a rather small claim.
[8] Although Plaintiff’s counsel makes an argument about the importance of the case to the Plaintiff, and I have no doubt that it was indeed important to her, this size case is precisely what Small Claims Court is for. Pursing a claim in that court does not diminish its importance, but it does provide a more streamlined procedure appropriate to the monetary value of the case to the parties. Importantly, it also frees up Superior Court of Justice resources for claims that other courts cannot handle, making for a more efficient administration of justice.
But for the Plaintiff’s rather large overreach, the entire litigation would have been far more expeditiously and inexpensively pursued in Small Claims Court.”
For a copy of this case, email me at barry@barryfisher.ca
For my mediation dates, go to www.barryfisher.ca