Cavalho v. Verma is a case that is well covered by our blog and by the media in general because of its subject matter: the dog, Rocco Jr.
The Deceased and Ms. Verma were in a relationship. The day after the Deceased’s death, Ms. Verma went to his house and Rocco Jr. was taken from the backyard. The Estate wanted Rocco Jr. back. After half a day of oral arguments, 2000 pages of filed material (including 25 affidavits), and 18 cross-examinations conducted over 3 days, the Court found that Rocco Jr. belonged the Estate: see 2024 ONCS 1183.
The Estate, having succeeded, sought full indemnity costs in the sum of $212,025.52. The Court, in 2024 ONSC 3915, sets out the general principles for costs, being that:
- Costs generally follow the event.
- Costs should be proportional to the issues and the outcome and be reasonable for the losing party to pay.
- Costs should be fair and reasonable, and it is more than just a mathematical exercise of hours docketed.
The issue of costs was a challenge in this case because the litigation behaviour from both sides was clearly disproportionate to the factual question at hand. In this case, Justice Stewart found that the Court “cannot endorse overall legal costs of over $265,000, nor can it endorse partial indemnity costs of $129,345.90 for the successful party”. Even though partial indemnity was the appropriate scale, it was reduced to $83,570, all inclusive, as the half-way point between the partial indemnity costs incurred by both parties, and it was also less than what Ms. Verma offered to pay for Rocco Jr.
While this costs decision is presumed to conclude this matter at the Superior Court level, I note that a stay pending appeal was denied in this matter on March 22, 2024 by the Court of Appeal.