Self-represented litigant

Following a twelve‑day family law trial concerning parenting arrangements, the successful party sought costs exceeding $140,000 after defeating the other party’s motion to change a prior consent order.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, the court found the successful party achieved total success and acted reasonably throughout the proceedings.

Although self‑represented at trial, the successful party had used limited legal assistance and was herself a lawyer, making recovery of reasonable fees appropriate.

The court reduced certain claimed amounts but rejected arguments that self‑representation barred recovery of legal fees.

Substantial costs were awarded against the unsuccessful party.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the plaintiff seeking to strike the defendant’s statement of defence and requesting that defence counsel be charged with perjury under the Criminal Code, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendant sought $5,000 in costs, arguing the motion was improper, vexatious, and unnecessary.

Applying Rule 57.01 and the principles articulated in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario), the court emphasized that costs should be fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay rather than reflective of actual legal expenses incurred.

Considering the circumstances and the plaintiff’s lack of success, the court awarded reduced costs to the defendant.

Following the dismissal of a copyright infringement action on summary judgment, the successful corporate defendants sought costs of the motions and the broader action.

The self‑represented plaintiff, who was also a qualified lawyer, argued that no costs should be awarded due to his modest means and good faith prosecution of the claim.

The court applied the normative Ontario approach that costs follow the event and are generally awarded on a partial indemnity basis under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that financial hardship was not established and that the plaintiff, as an experienced lawyer, understood the risks of adverse costs.

Applying reasonableness and proportionality principles, the court fixed costs at $50,000 for one defendant and $70,000 for the other.

Following the granting of summary judgment dismissing the action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, the defendant physician sought costs of both the summary judgment motion and the action.

The self‑represented plaintiff argued that no costs should be awarded and that he should instead be compensated for expenses incurred responding to the motion.

The court reaffirmed the principle that costs generally follow the event and applied the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding the defendant’s legal fees and disbursements reasonable, including discovery transcript expenses, the court fixed partial indemnity costs for both the motion and the action.

Following a successful summary judgment dismissing a $7,000,000 civil action alleging numerous torts including conspiracy, defamation, fraud, and malicious prosecution, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiff, self-represented, filed no responding costs submissions.

The court found the litigation was particularly acrimonious and that the plaintiff’s conduct throughout was unreasonable, including scandalous allegations against the defendants, police, and Crown counsel.

The defendants’ offer to settle for dismissal without costs triggered Rule 49 consequences as they were entirely successful.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants.

The defendant insurer brought a motion seeking security for costs and related procedural orders in an action arising from a motor vehicle accident benefits dispute.

The plaintiff had previously pursued multiple proceedings following the denial of additional statutory accident benefits by a Financial Services Commission arbitrator and subsequent appeal.

The court found there was reason to believe the ongoing action was approaching the threshold of frivolous or vexatious litigation and that security for costs was justified under Rule 56.01(1)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ordered the plaintiff to pay $2,500 as security for costs within 45 days failing which the action would be stayed, established a discovery timetable, and restricted direct communications with the defendant.

Partial indemnity costs of $2,500 were also awarded to the defendant.

Following a successful motion to set aside a default judgment, the self‑represented defendants sought over $34,000 in costs for work performed on the motion.

The court considered the governing principles for awarding costs to self‑represented litigants, particularly the requirement articulated in Fong v. Chan and applied in subsequent cases that a litigant must prove an opportunity cost by showing that remunerative work was foregone.

The defendants provided no evidence that they suffered such a loss of income.

The court held that without proof of opportunity cost, no allowance for counsel fees or time could be awarded to self‑represented litigants.

Only documented disbursements were recoverable.

Following a prior motion and costs ruling, the court issued an amended costs decision after receiving correspondence suggesting a mathematical error.

It was later discovered that the correspondence had been sent in error and that the parties had already reached a settlement before the amended decision was released.

The court held that the amended costs decision should not have been issued and rescinded it, restoring the original costs decision.

The self‑represented defendant sought to reopen the original costs ruling, but the court declined to do so.

However, the court awarded the defendant costs for the additional attendance required to address the issue.

Following a successful jurisdiction motion dismissing the plaintiff’s action, the remaining issue concerned costs payable to one of the defendants.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs after failing to obtain agreement with the self-represented plaintiff.

The court considered the principles governing costs under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the discretionary nature of quantum.

Although the bill of costs was not excessive or unreasonable, the court exercised discretion to reduce the requested amount.

Costs were awarded in a reduced all-inclusive amount.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend a notice of action and extend the time to file and serve a statement of claim arising from alleged medical negligence following a bicycle accident.

The plaintiff had failed to file a statement of claim within the time required by the Rules of Civil Procedure and sought relief after receiving an administrative dismissal notice.

The court considered the principles governing extensions of time under the Rules of Civil Procedure, including whether the extension would advance the just resolution of the dispute without causing prejudice to the defendants.

Despite the delay and the potential expiry of limitation periods, the court found that an extension would not cause unfair prejudice and would promote the just resolution of the dispute.

The court granted extensions to file and serve the statement of claim while leaving limitation and statutory notice issues to be determined later.

Following a five‑day trial varying child support and determining income for support purposes, the court addressed costs.

The applicant father sought partial recovery of $45,000 in costs after successfully obtaining a variation of child support from May 2006 onward.

The court considered the presumption of costs under the Family Law Rules, the parties’ settlement offers, and the proportionality and reasonableness factors under r. 24.

Although the applicant achieved greater success and had made an offer more favourable than the trial result, the court reduced the requested amount due to proportionality concerns and the applicant’s unreasonable conduct in failing to pay child support for 44 months.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56 in an action arising from a failed real estate transaction and subsequent landlord‑tenant disputes.

The self‑represented plaintiff alleged fraud and misrepresentation relating to a Seller Property Information Statement and sought extensive damages against the vendors and real estate agents.

The court found that the defendants met the threshold under Rule 56 due to outstanding unpaid costs awards and concerns that the action was frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff failed to prove impecuniosity or provide evidence supporting financial hardship.

Security for costs was therefore ordered, with different amounts depending on whether the plaintiff proceeded under the regular or simplified rules.

Following an earlier decision striking the plaintiff’s statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs after being completely successful on its motion.

The self-represented plaintiff responded by focusing on the merits of the underlying claim rather than the costs issue.

The court held that the defendant was entitled to costs under Rule 57 and found the submitted bill of costs reasonable.

Following a summary judgment motion and multiple related motions in a civil action alleging defamation and several other torts, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

Most of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed on summary judgment except for defamation, and the court found that the plaintiff’s pleadings were vague and unsupported by evidence.

The court also considered the plaintiff’s litigation conduct, including verbose and inflammatory materials, unnecessary motions, and personal attacks against opposing counsel.

Costs were awarded on a substantial indemnity basis for the defendants’ summary judgment motion and on a full indemnity basis for certain motions brought by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff also received limited partial indemnity costs for earlier attendances, which were set off against the larger amounts owed to the defendants.

Self-represented plaintiffs sought costs after successfully defending a summary judgment motion.

They claimed compensation for their own time spent litigating as well as disbursements and legal advice obtained from counsel.

The court applied the principles governing costs for self-represented litigants, requiring proof of opportunity cost demonstrating that remunerative activity was foregone.

As no evidence of lost income or opportunities was provided, the court declined to award costs for the litigants’ personal time.

However, the court allowed recovery of actual out-of-pocket legal expenses and disbursements and declined to set off earlier reserved costs due to defence counsel’s disregard of page limits imposed by the court.

Following an unsuccessful motion by a non-party seeking intervener status in a civil action, the court determined costs.

The moving party argued that costs should not be awarded due to his status as an impecunious student.

The court held that alleged impecuniosity generally should not affect costs determinations and emphasized that the moving party had been warned costs would be sought if the motion proceeded.

The court also found that the moving party engaged in unreasonable conduct after the motion by sending emails attacking counsel and attempting to pressure the plaintiff to withdraw her claim for costs.

Costs were ordered payable to both opposing parties.

Following a family law trial concerning access and household items, the successful party sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the applicant’s costs outline and found the claimed amount reasonable.

The respondent, who was self‑represented, filed extensive submissions largely addressing issues unrelated to the matters litigated at trial.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs for the trial in the amount claimed.

Following a lengthy family trial, the court determined costs on written submissions and found the responding party's disclosure failures and litigation conduct materially increased complexity and trial time.

The court declined to revisit prior costs awards and rejected the responding party's claim for personal compensation for business time.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the moving party, but full indemnity was not granted because the conduct did not meet an egregious bad-faith threshold.

The court fixed pre-trial, trial, and post-trial fees and disbursements totalling $74,537.43 and characterized the costs as related to child support enforcement and collection.

Following a seven‑day family law trial addressing equalization, spousal support, child support, section 7 expenses, and custody, the court determined costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Success at trial was mixed; however, the applicant achieved greater overall success, including on equalization and entitlement to ongoing spousal support and retroactive child support.

The court also considered the respondent’s conduct, including advancing irrelevant evidence that extended the length of the trial, though acknowledging the challenges faced by a self‑represented litigant.

Balancing the mixed results and the factors under Rule 24(11), the court awarded partial costs to the applicant.

The respondent was ordered to pay $8,500 in costs as support.

Following dismissal of a civil action alleging negligence and defamation against a credit reporting agency, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The successful defendant sought recovery of trial and preparation costs after a two-and-a-half-day trial involving a self-represented plaintiff.

The court considered the importance of the proceeding, its moderate complexity, the absence of wasted time, and a prior settlement offer proposing dismissal without costs.

The defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs, including counsel fees and disbursements, fixed at $17,301.45 payable within 30 days.