Self-represented litigant

The defendants brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of defence and counterclaim.

The plaintiffs opposed certain amendments, arguing they constituted a withdrawal of admissions regarding Mr. Cui's employment by the plaintiff corporations.

The court found that the original pleading, drafted by a self-represented litigant, did not contain unambiguous, deliberate, and intentional admissions.

Even if admissions were withdrawn, the court determined that the three-part test for withdrawal was met, particularly given the reasonable explanation provided (self-representation and lack of legal training).

The motion to amend was granted, with the plaintiffs awarded $3,500 in costs thrown away on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Law Society of Ontario brought an application for a permanent injunction to restrain Elizabeth Dias from practicing law or providing legal services without a license.

Dias, who was unlicensed, had provided extensive legal assistance and representation to an individual, Don Fex, in multiple Superior and Divisional Court proceedings.

Dias argued she was merely assisting a friend, relying on the "friend or neighbour" exception under By-Law 4 of the Law Society Act.

The court found that Dias's actions constituted the unauthorized practice of law, as the services provided exceeded what a licensed paralegal could offer and were rendered in Superior Court, making the friend or neighbour exception inapplicable.

The court granted the permanent injunction, emphasizing the public interest in preventing unauthorized legal practice and noting the prejudice caused to Mr. Fex by Dias's actions.

The applicant sought an extension of time to perfect and file an appeal of interim and final orders pertaining to child custody and support.

The court applied the five-factor test for extending time to appeal, considering the applicant's intention, the length of delay, the explanation for delay, the merits of the appeal, and potential prejudice to the respondent.

Despite the applicant's stated intention to appeal, the court found the delay substantial and the explanations, including medical and financial difficulties, insufficient, particularly given the applicant's engagement in other legal proceedings.

The court also determined the appeal lacked merit, noting the unlikelihood of a custody change and the applicant's inability to procure necessary transcripts.

Consequently, the motion for an extension was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the underlying appeal.

The defendants sought costs after successfully obtaining summary judgment, which dismissed the plaintiff's action for failing to establish a serious, permanent impairment under the Insurance Act.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs and sought reimbursement for her own expenses.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs, reducing the amount sought due to estimated, undocketed fees of a retired counsel and considering the plaintiff's stated impecuniosity, while affirming the principle that costs compensate the successful party.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's lawsuit for failure to state a reasonable cause of action and as an abuse of process.

The court struck out the fresh as amended statement of claim, finding that the claims (breach of privacy, trespass, conspiracy) were legally deficient, particularly due to absolute privilege for statements made in legal proceedings and a lack of material facts.

The court further found the action to be an abuse of process, largely driven by a non-lawyer, Gary Curtis, who had a history of vexatious litigation against the defendant.

Leave to amend the claim was denied, and the action was dismissed with substantial indemnity costs awarded to the defendant due to the reprehensible conduct of the litigation.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against Gene Simmons and Canadian Tire Centre (CTC) due to the plaintiff's continuous non-compliance and disrespectful conduct.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the self-represented plaintiff to Gene Simmons in the amount of $5,108.03 and to CTC in the amount of $13,021.82, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court found the plaintiff's actions, including failure to approve a draft order, requesting unnecessary case conferences, and re-issuing a rejected amended statement of claim, unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and increased costs for the defendants.

Lawrence Mark Dale sought leave to extend the time for appealing three interlocutory orders made by Faieta J., along with a stay of those orders, directions for the case, and an order appointing a lawyer for his children.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Dale failed to satisfy the test for granting an extension of time to appeal, particularly regarding the merits of the proposed appeals and his explanations for delay.

The court also noted Dale's wilful breaches of previous court orders.

The Applicant sought costs arising from her unsuccessful motion to strike the Respondent's Answer due to his failure to pay a previous costs order.

The Respondent, who was self-represented, also sought costs for successfully defending the motion.

The court found that both parties acted unreasonably in precipitating and conducting the motion, with the Applicant claiming excessive costs and the Respondent failing to properly substantiate his claim.

Consequently, the court ordered no costs payable for the motion, disentitling both parties to the costs they might otherwise have received.

The defendant, Nadire Atas, sought an extension of time to bring a motion to set aside a noting in default in defamation proceedings.

The court denied the request, emphasizing that while the defendant was not precluded from bringing such a motion later, her continuing delay could prejudice any subsequent motion.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that an appeal deadline in the Court of Appeal justified further delay in the Superior Court, noting that the defendant had not raised this conflict with the Court of Appeal judge.

The court found that the plaintiffs had been prejudiced by the ongoing delays.

This decision addresses costs arising from two competing applications concerning land ownership between Aragon (Wellesley) Development (Ontario) Corporation and Piller Investments Limited.

While Aragon and Piller settled their costs, the court determined the costs payable by Piller to William Alexander Young and John David Dinsdale, who were participants in the original dispute.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs for the period Young and Dinsdale were represented by counsel, along with disbursements.

However, claims for costs for their time as self-represented litigants were denied, as they failed to demonstrate a loss of remunerative activity, consistent with established principles for self-represented litigants.

The applicant (Saad Elias in the main application) sought an order declaring his mother incapable of managing property and appointing his brother as guardian.

The respondent (Daad Abdulwahid in the main application) brought a motion for security for costs against Saad Elias, who resided in California and had no assets in Ontario.

The court found that Saad Elias failed to demonstrate impecuniosity and that his underlying application for guardianship was devoid of merit, particularly regarding the existence of a valid power of attorney and the lack of evidence for misuse of funds.

The motion for security for costs was granted.

The self-represented defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from the Central East Region (Newmarket) to the Toronto Region, citing lack of reliable transportation and financial means.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing it would be inconvenient for them as elderly individuals.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that the defendant failed to establish that the proposed Toronto venue was "significantly better" than the plaintiff's chosen venue in Newmarket, after a holistic consideration of the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Costs of the motion were reserved to the trial judge.

This decision addresses the costs following a 20-day trial concerning custody and access, where the respondent (L.) was largely successful.

The respondent sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the applicant (P.) requested annulment or reversal of costs.

The court, applying Rule 24(1) of the Règles en matière de droit de la famille, found the respondent presumptively entitled to costs.

The court rejected the respondent's reliance on a settlement offer made during a settlement conference due to Rule 17(23) and its failure to meet Rule 18 criteria.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent, reducing some claims due to shared responsibility for trial length and specific motion outcomes.

The final award was $83,960 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The court issued a chambers endorsement in ongoing proceedings involving Nadire Atas, directing her to raise concerns and bring motions through formal channels, specifically case management conferences or the established Chavali process.

The court reiterated that it would not respond to informal correspondence or demands, including requests for recusal, made outside these formal procedures.

The applicant sought a contempt order against the respondent for failing to comply with a previous court order requiring a pension valuation, an up-to-date financial statement, and supporting documentation.

The court found the respondent in contempt for willfully failing to file an up-to-date financial statement in the correct Form 13.1, despite being explicitly instructed by a prior judge.

However, allegations regarding the pension valuation and supporting documentation were dismissed, as the former was not proven to be a willful breach and the latter was deemed too vague in the original order to establish deliberate non-compliance.

The court imposed an order for the respondent to file the correct financial statement and supporting documents within 14 days, with a conditional fine and imprisonment for non-compliance, and fixed costs payable to the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking compliance with information-sharing provisions of a final order related to the parties' four children.

The motion was dismissed due to improper affidavit evidence, as the applicant relied on affidavits from lawyers who lacked personal knowledge of the contentious facts, violating rules of evidence.

The court strongly disapproved of this practice, emphasizing that parties should file their own affidavits.

While the motion was dismissed, the issues raised were permitted to be addressed at a pre-existing trial.

The respondent was awarded costs for the motion.

This endorsement addresses costs following a successful paternity test motion brought by the respondent, Jose Vargas, which confirmed he was the biological father.

The applicant, Natasha Saunders, had opposed the paternity test and sought substantial costs, arguing her offer to settle was more favourable and the respondent's position on reimbursement of past child support was unreasonable given recent amendments to the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court awarded the applicant nominal costs, finding her offer on paternity consistent with the outcome, but also considering the respondent's self-represented status, the global nature of the applicant's costs claim, and the unnecessary proliferation of motions.

The decision also clarifies the application of Family Law Rule 24 regarding costs for earlier steps, particularly those before court officers without cost-ordering authority.

The defendants, Zhiyi Zhou and Lina Wu, brought a motion to set aside the report of Master Wiebe, alleging errors in the Master's findings regarding a construction contract dispute and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Master had found that Mr. Zhou engaged in subterfuge regarding contract terms, improperly terminated the agreement, and was not credible.

The Superior Court dismissed the defendants' motion, confirming the Master's report.

The court found no error in the Master's application of the Browne v. Dunn rule, nor any reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the high threshold for such claims and the need to accommodate self-represented litigants while respecting the other party's rights.

The plaintiff, Torsten Klasen, commenced a $15,000,000 claim in Toronto, which was subsequently transferred to Windsor by order of Howard J. with costs of $3,500 payable by Klasen.

Klasen failed to pay these costs for approximately 17 months.

The defendants, 469311 Ontario Ltd. (Myers Towing) and Elaine Myers, brought a motion to strike Klasen's claim against them due to the non-payment of costs and the frivolous nature of the claim.

The court found Klasen's actions consistent with an intent to drive up costs and complicate proceedings, and that he demonstrated no intention to be responsible for the costs.

The motion was granted, striking Klasen's claim against the moving defendants and awarding them $1,500 in costs for the current motion.

This endorsement addresses a dispute over costs following an inability of the parties to settle.

The self-represented respondents sought various expenses, including bank fees, legal expenses from a lawyer not on record, printing/office supplies, and travel costs.

The applicant disputed several of these claims.

The court allowed a reduced amount for legal expenses and office supplies on a partial indemnity basis, finding the respondents' claims lacked particulars.

Bank fees were rejected as damages, not costs, and travel expenses were disallowed because the applicant was statutorily required to commence proceedings in the Region of Waterloo, and such expenses are not typically included in Tariff A, Part II – Disbursements.

The court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondents at $762.75.