Self-represented litigant

Following a trial of two construction lien actions, the parties sought costs and pre-judgment interest.

The court rejected requests to pay costs from security posted for an expired lien.

The successful plaintiff, Senso, was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $120,000 against both defendants jointly and severally due to their pursuit of unmeritorious defences.

The partially successful plaintiff, TMAP, was awarded partial indemnity costs against one defendant.

The successful defendant, Finch, was awarded partial indemnity costs against TMAP and the co-defendant, but was denied costs for the time its self-represented principal spent on the trial due to a lack of evidence regarding lost opportunity costs.

Pre-judgment interest was awarded based on fluctuating rates as calculated by the plaintiffs.

Following the dismissal of both the appellant's appeal and the respondent's cross-motion for leave to appeal costs, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The self-represented respondent sought approximately $40,000 in costs, claiming lost remuneration as a contractor.

The appellant argued for no costs due to divided success.

The Court of Appeal ordered no costs of the appeal, finding that success was divided and noting the additional time incurred due to the respondent's late filing of the cross-motion.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant, brought a motion to vary an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal.

The single judge had declined to direct the issuance of a notice of appeal, grant a declaration regarding a previous order, and consolidate appeals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to vary, finding that the moving party failed to identify any sustainable legal basis to interfere with the order and had brought the motion without leave, contrary to a previous order.

The self-represented appellant commenced a dental malpractice action against the respondent dentists.

The respondents moved for summary judgment on the basis that the appellant had not delivered an expert report supporting her claim, but the respondents themselves did not file any expert evidence regarding the standard of care.

The motion judge granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the moving party defendants failed to discharge their evidentiary burden under Rule 20 to put their best foot forward by adducing evidence on the merits of their defence.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal two orders in a high-conflict matrimonial proceeding: an order striking his pleadings for failure to pay costs, and a subsequent final order from an uncontested trial.

The moving party argued that as a self-represented litigant, he did not understand the implications of the order striking his pleadings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had a lawyer present when the consequences were discussed, failed to move promptly after learning of the final order, and failed to demonstrate that the final order resulted in any real injustice or substantive errors.

The appellant commenced an action in 2001 against the municipality.

After years of inactivity and failure to set the action down for trial, the motion judge dismissed the action for delay in 2015.

The appellant appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in finding inordinate and inexcusable delay, and failed to accommodate him as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the delay was indeed inordinate and inexcusable, raising a presumption of prejudice that the appellant failed to rebut.

The court noted that while self-represented litigants face challenges, they must still familiarize themselves with relevant procedures.

This costs endorsement addressed whether successful moving parties could recover costs against a self-represented plaintiff who was a minor and therefore a party under disability when two motions were argued.

The court reviewed the historical practice under the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring minors to litigate through litigation guardians and noted that costs are generally borne by the litigation guardian or, in some cases, counsel, not by the minor personally.

The court held that a party who lacks legal capacity to commence or defend proceedings should not be held personally liable for costs arising from those proceedings.

No order for costs was made in favour of the defendants.

The appellant appealed a trial decision that awarded him $57,566 on a $135,000 loan, arguing he was entitled to the full amount and that the trial judge erred in dismissing fraudulent conveyance claims against the respondents.

The appellant also alleged the trial was conducted unfairly.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge treated the self-represented appellant fairly, made factual findings regarding loan repayments that were amply supported by the evidence, and correctly dismissed the fraudulent conveyance claims due to a lack of evidence regarding insolvency.

In a family law costs decision following trial, the applicant sought substantial indemnity costs based on success, an offer to settle, alleged bad faith, and allegedly unreasonable conduct by the self-represented respondent.

The court held the offer did not meet Rule 18 requirements because it did not equal or exceed the trial result, though it remained a discretionary consideration.

While the respondent's conduct lengthened the trial and increased expense, the court found her health condition and self-represented status militated against a punitive or elevated costs award.

Costs were fixed at $31,000 on a partial indemnity scale, with payment structured through trust funds from sale proceeds and deductions from future spousal support.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment ordering her to pay damages and costs for fraudulent misrepresentations made to obtain a mortgage loan.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in evaluating the evidence, rejecting her claim that she was an innocent dupe in a mortgage fraud scheme, and failing to assist her as a self-represented litigant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant had participated fully at trial without any failure of assistance by the judge.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the respondent.

In consolidated family-related proceedings, the court dismissed a self-represented party's attempt to overturn an earlier vexatious litigant order and, in the alternative, granted a fresh application declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The record disclosed persistent, duplicative, and abusive motions, collateral attacks on witnesses, counsel, and prior rulings, and conduct amounting to harassment and oppression.

The court held that the earlier judge had ample basis to make the order and that, in any event, the current evidentiary record independently justified the same result.

No further proceeding may be instituted or continued by the respondent without leave of a Superior Court judge.

This was an amended costs endorsement and directions decision arising from a prior trial judgment involving fraud-related allegations, counterclaims, and title issues concerning a business property.

The court proceeded in the absence of one defendant, corrected typographical errors in the earlier reasons, confirmed the principal judgment amount, and fixed prejudgment and post-judgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The self-represented plaintiff was awarded $100,000 inclusive in substantial indemnity costs against one opposing party for the action and counterclaim, with compensation for his own time at an hourly rate.

No costs were awarded as between the plaintiff and one defendant, but substantial indemnity costs of $75,000 were awarded against the plaintiff in favour of another defendant based on Rule 49 and an earlier offer to settle.

The court also gave directions concerning the form of a title transfer order, future assessment proceedings, potential sale steps, and settlement of the formal judgment.

This was a costs decision following dismissal of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion and the granting of the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the action against them.

The successful defendants sought $29,905.98 in costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff argued the claim was excessive and that the matter had been over-lawyered, submitting that only provable disbursements should be awarded.

The court agreed that costs should reflect a fair and reasonable amount rather than a precise hourly calculation and fixed costs at $25,000 all inclusive.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his claim and awarding $48,000 in costs to the respondent.

The dismissal resulted from the appellant's persistent and deliberate failure to comply with court orders regarding disclosure and production obligations.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere, noting the appellant's repeated flouting of court orders and failure to comply with a 'last chance' order.

The court rejected the suggestion that the self-represented appellant was treated unfairly, noting he had threatened opposing counsel with death.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

At a trial management conference in a long-running family law proceeding, the court addressed trial scheduling, disclosure management, and a request to revisit an earlier order suspending temporary spousal support.

The applicant sought reconsideration and leave to bring a further temporary support motion, but the court refused, emphasizing that the matter was already on the trial list and should proceed expeditiously.

The court nevertheless adjourned the trial start to accommodate counsel's scheduling conflict, imposed strict 20-day trial limits, regulated document copying charges, and set a detailed agenda for the continued trial management conference.

Both parties were barred from bringing further motions before trial.

The appellant, a self-represented litigant, appealed his conviction for failing to stop at a red light under the Provincial Offences Act.

He argued his right to make full answer and defence was violated because the prosecutor did not advise him of his right to disclosure, and the Justice of the Peace failed to assist him.

The City conceded that the appellant was not adequately informed of his right to disclosure and that significant video evidence had been lost.

Based on these concessions, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and entered an acquittal.

The Court declined to rule on the broader constitutional and procedural issues regarding disclosure for unrepresented litigants, finding them moot.

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the court determined the quantum of trial costs payable to the cross-appellant, a lawyer who represented himself at trial.

The cross-appellant sought substantial indemnity costs of approximately $49,600, while the respondent suggested $1,000.

Applying the principle that self-represented lawyers are entitled to costs for work ordinarily done by retained counsel that results in an opportunity cost, the court fixed the cross-appellant's trial costs at $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought leave to appeal under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act from a judgment dismissing her appeal of a sentence for a zoning infraction.

The applicant's son had pleaded guilty on her behalf and agreed to a fine, but later appealed the fine.

The appeal court judge dismissed the appeal due to delay in filing transcripts, despite the applicant's son appearing with the transcripts and explaining the delay.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, finding that the applicant may not have had a full and fair opportunity to argue the motion or the appeal, raising concerns about the due administration of justice.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, moved to set aside an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that dismissed her motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The underlying action involved a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant also sought to compel the production of an article used by an expert at trial and to set aside the Divisional Court's costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in the single judge's discretionary ruling that the proposed appeal raised issues of significance only to the parties.

The court also held that the production request should have been made at trial and found no reversible error in the costs award.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a property transfer and child support, arguing the trial judge erred in his conduct of the trial and in finding a separation agreement invalid.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge appropriately assisted the self-represented appellant and ensured a fair trial.

The Court also upheld the finding that the separation agreement was invalid under the Family Law Act and unenforceable because the appellant had not paid the required consideration.

The appeal was dismissed.