“Mr. Sherlock does not argue that the time spent by Ms. Mullin’s lawyers was excessive. He also has not tendered his own lawyers’ Bill of Costs. As noted in my reasons dated November 10, 2017, when one party attacks another’s costs as excessive, but does not put its own dockets before the court, the attack “is no more than an attack in the air.” In Risorto v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., (2003), Winkler J., then a motion judge, stated:
The attack on the quantum of costs, insofar as the allegations of excess are concerned, in the present circumstances is no more than an attack in the air. I note that State Farm has not put the dockets of its counsel before the court in support of its submission. Although such information is not required under Rule 57 in its present form, and the rule enumerates certain factors which would have to be considered in exercising the discretion with respect to the fixing of costs in any event, it might still provide some useful context for the process if the court had before it the bills of all counsel when allegations of excess and “unwarranted over-lawyering” are made. In that regard, the court is also entitled to consider “any other matter relevant to the question of costs”. (See Rule 57.01(1)(i). In my view, the relative expenditures, at least in terms of time, by adversaries on opposite sides of a motion, while not conclusive as to the appropriate award of costs, is still, nonetheless, a relevant consideration where there is an allegation of excess in respect of a particular matter: Risorto v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2003), 2003 CanLII 43566 (ON SC), ONSC 43566 (CanLII), 64 O.R. (3d) 135, at para. 10 (S.C.), per Winkler J., cited in Springer v. Aird & Berlins LLP (2009), 2009 CanLII 26608 (ON SC), 2009 ONSC 26608 (CanLII), 74 C.C.E.L.(3d) 243 (Ont. S.C.), at paras. 10-17. [Emphasis added.]”