Chris Rutherford

The court fixes costs following the dismissal of Rachel Obita’s action against Algonquin College.

The College was wholly successful on a motion to strike, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

The College sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court reviewed the bill of costs, reduced certain amounts for work by articling students and a clerk, and fixed total costs payable by Ms. Obita at $35,515.00, plus $1,000 for the costs of the costs submissions.

The ruling discusses the principles for awarding costs, especially in cases involving self-represented litigants.

Rachel Obita, a self-represented plaintiff, sued Algonquin College for various torts and breach of contract related to her academic experience, including a disputed grade and alleged academic bullying.

The College moved to strike her amended statement of claim for lack of jurisdiction and failure to disclose reasonable causes of action.

The court found it had jurisdiction over the general subject matter but determined that all of Ms. Obita's pleaded causes of action (intentional infliction of pain and suffering, defamation, intrusion on seclusion, breach of contract, negligence, deceit, and fraudulent misrepresentation) were fatally flawed and failed to meet pleading requirements.

Given her prior opportunity to amend and litigation conduct, the court dismissed the entire action without leave to amend.

The defendant college brought a preliminary motion to strike portions of the self-represented plaintiff's affidavit and factum filed in response to the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's pleading.

The court found that the plaintiff's affidavit contained extensive argument, opinion, and inflammatory rhetoric in violation of Rule 4.06, and that her factum relied on facts not in evidence.

The court granted the defendant's motion, striking the offending paragraphs from both documents, and dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion to strike paragraphs from the defendant's affidavits.

The self-represented plaintiff, a former student, brought a motion seeking mandatory injunctions requiring the defendant College to change its policies, impose sanctions, and reopen her student portal account.

The court dismissed the requests for injunctive relief and sanctions because an injunction was not pleaded in the statement of claim and the sanctions lacked legal basis.

The court ordered the College to provide copies of the plaintiff's portal documents instead of reopening the account.

The College's cross-motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavits containing opinions and arguments was granted.

The defendants sought costs after successfully moving to dismiss the plaintiff's action as an abuse of process.

The court had previously found that the action was commenced under a pseudonym by a declared vexatious litigant who required leave to start an action.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the CBC defendants and another defendant, finding the plaintiff's conduct justified elevated costs.

The court also noted inappropriate submissions made by the plaintiff's counsel.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss a $20 million libel action, alleging the plaintiff was actually a declared vexatious litigant using an alias to circumvent a court order requiring leave to commence proceedings.

The plaintiff repeatedly failed to comply with court orders to produce government-issued identification.

The court drew an adverse inference from this failure, concluding the plaintiff was indeed the vexatious litigant using an alias.

The action was dismissed as an abuse of process and for failing to obtain the required leave.

The applicant student was unsuccessful in obtaining an interlocutory injunction to stay disciplinary decisions made by the respondent college.

The respondent college sought partial indemnity costs of $7,210.

The court found the college was entirely successful and entitled to costs, but reduced the quantum to $5,000 due to the applicant's hardship as an international student navigating the public health crisis without family support.

The plaintiffs, who moved from Thailand to Canada to operate a Thai restaurant, sued the defendants for breach of contract and unjust enrichment after their employment was terminated.

The court found no enforceable contract but held that the defendants were unjustly enriched by the plaintiffs' financial contributions and goods shipped for the restaurant.

The plaintiffs' recovery was offset by loans and expenses incurred by the defendants.

The court also awarded the plaintiff cook unpaid wages and pay in lieu of notice, while granting the defendants' counterclaim for cash retained by the plaintiff husband.

The applicant student sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the respondent college from evicting him from the student residence after his contract expired, following disciplinary sanctions for failing to wear a mask.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the college's decision to enter into or renew a residence agreement was a private, contractual matter not subject to judicial review, as it did not involve the exercise of a power central to the college's administrative mandate.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as relocation costs would be compensable in damages and his academic program was being delivered remotely.

The paternal grandmother and uncle brought an interim motion for access to their 13-year-old grandson and nephew following the death of the child's father.

The mother opposed the motion, citing the child's lack of interest in access.

The court applied the Chapman test, noting that deference should generally be given to the custodial parent's decision unless the parent is acting arbitrarily to imperil a positive relationship.

Finding that the mother was not acting arbitrarily and giving significant weight to the 13-year-old child's wishes, the court dismissed the motion for interim access.

The plaintiff's action was administratively dismissed for delay after missing the deadline to set the matter down for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the action, while the defendants brought a cross-motion to reinstate their counterclaim if the plaintiff was successful.

Applying the Reid factors, the court found that the plaintiff adequately explained the litigation delay and that the defendants would not suffer actual prejudice if the action proceeded.

The court set aside the dismissal, reinstated both the action and the counterclaim, and ordered the matter to be set down for trial.