Dockets are generally required only in exceptional cases to determine costs: court
In a class action lawsuit, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled against the defendants' motion to produce class counsel’s dockets.
The dockets were sought to support the plaintiffs' request for costs arising from the certification and "replacement plaintiff" motions in ongoing litigation. The court reviewed the parties' submissions and concluded that the production of the dockets was not warranted. This decision comes despite the defendants RBC Insurance Agency Ltd. and Aviva General Insurance Company’s assertion that the substantial amount of costs claimed justified a thorough review, which would include the supporting dockets.
The litigation has seen several key developments, including the class action certification against both RBC and Aviva General, with specific conditions applied to the common issues and class definition as detailed in previous court decisions. However, the certification against Aviva General was contingent upon appointing a representative plaintiff whose claims were not barred by statute.
Following the certification, disagreements arose over the costs associated with the motions, leading to the current dispute over the production of detailed billing records from the plaintiffs' legal team. The plaintiffs submitted a costs outline, while the defendants countered by requesting a review of the class counsel’s dockets to substantiate these costs.
The Superior Court referred to established legal principles that suggested dockets are generally required only in exceptional cases to determine costs. This principle is aimed at ensuring a fair and reasonable cost determination without necessitating detailed scrutiny of each billing entry.
Moreover, the decision highlighted that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not typically necessitate dockets for motion costs and that solicitor-client privilege must be protected, barring exceptional circumstances. The court emphasized that the defendants had not demonstrated such circumstances.
The court also addressed the defendants’ arguments regarding the disparity in costs between the parties and alleged incongruities in the plaintiffs’ costs outline. The court concluded that these issues could be reviewed adequately through the cost submissions without needing to delve into the privileged details of the dockets. As a result of these findings, the court dismissed the motion for the production of dockets.
