Self-represented litigant

In a family law application that had been outstanding for five years, the self-represented party refused to participate in the trial without counsel, citing medical issues and stress.

The moving party brought a motion for the appointment of an amicus curiae to assist the court and ensure the trial could proceed.

Applying the principles from Morwald-Benevides, the court found that the self-represented party was hopelessly incompetent to self-represent and that the assistance of an amicus was essential to the adequate discharge of the judicial function.

The motion was granted, and Legal Aid Ontario was directed to provide a list of lawyers willing to act as amicus.

The defendants, directors and officers of a condominium corporation, brought a motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim.

The plaintiff's claim alleged various criminal acts and sought millions in damages, stemming from his belief that an electrical room beneath his unit emitted harmful electromagnetic waves.

The court found the statement of claim to be fatally flawed, lacking material facts, and essentially drafted as a criminal information.

The motion was granted, and the statement of claim was struck without leave to amend, with costs awarded to the defendants.

The self-represented plaintiff succeeded in a construction lien action, recovering $8,277.97 after claiming over $67,000.

The defendants, who failed on their $112,000 counterclaim, argued the plaintiff should be denied costs because the recovery fell within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction and because of an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court held that the Small Claims Court lacks jurisdiction over lien actions, making Rule 57.05(1) inapplicable.

The court awarded the plaintiff $9,000 in partial indemnity costs, reducing the amount due to his failure to engage in reasonable settlement negotiations.

This is a costs decision following an application regarding a referral agreement between two law firms.

The respondent, who was successful on the issue of how much should be paid into court, sought and was awarded costs as a self-represented litigant.

The Bank of Nova Scotia, a creditor of the applicant, sought and was awarded full indemnity costs based on its banking agreement with the applicant.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's product liability action for failing to participate at trial, the successful defendant sought costs of $139,739.85 plus disbursements on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendant's offers to settle did not trigger Rule 49 consequences and the plaintiff's conduct did not warrant an elevated scale.

Noting that the defendant was represented by in-house counsel who did not docket time, and that the amount claimed was excessive with duplication of effort, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale at $36,000 plus HST and $7,752.05 in disbursements.

The appellant, a self-represented lawyer, appealed an Associate Justice's dismissal of his motion for security for costs.

The appellant argued the Associate Justice erred by not first determining if the prerequisite factors under Rule 56.01(1) were met before exercising discretion, and by excluding a late-filed reply affidavit.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law.

The Associate Justice correctly applied a holistic approach to determine if a security for costs order was just, properly concluded the appellant failed to prove entitlement to costs as a self-represented litigant, and appropriately excluded the late affidavit due to prejudice.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The court had previously declared the plaintiff's construction lien expired and dismissed the action insofar as it sought to enforce the lien.

The defendant argued the remaining breach of contract claim should also be dismissed for delay.

The court found that while the plaintiff had failed to advance the litigation and ignored its obligations, it would be unjust to dismiss the potentially meritorious claim without giving the self-represented plaintiff a final opportunity.

The court permitted the contract claim to proceed under a strict timetable and awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs of $14,130.22, with the action to be automatically stayed if costs were not paid.

The parties, both self-represented, sought costs following a Motion to Change in a family law proceeding.

Both parties claimed costs for the time they took off work to attend court hearings.

The court held that self-represented litigants cannot be compensated for time spent attending court, as represented parties are not compensated for their own time attending court.

Given the history of constant litigation and rancour between the parties, the court declined to parse success on the various issues and ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The plaintiff's action against the Peel Police was dismissed after a 27-day trial.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $434,377.49.

The court found that a police officer had fabricated evidence against the plaintiff, which constituted conduct bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

Consequently, the court significantly reduced the costs award to the defendant.

However, because the self-represented plaintiff unnecessarily lengthened the trial by raising irrelevant issues, the court awarded the defendant a modest costs sum of $50,000.

The plaintiffs' motion for an interim injunction was previously dismissed.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The successful defendant, a self-represented retiree, sought costs for the time he and his wife spent responding to the motion.

The plaintiffs argued that under Girao v. Cunningham, the defendant was not entitled to costs because he did not forego remunerative activity.

The court held that while the defendant did not incur an opportunity cost in the form of lost wages, a modest costs award was still appropriate to encourage settlement and prevent the plaintiffs from litigating with impunity.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment for repayment of an alleged loan, and the self-represented defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action.

The defendant requested an adjournment due to symptoms from a COVID-19 vaccination.

The court granted the adjournment and provided extensive procedural guidance to the self-represented defendant, ordering her to file an affidavit, attend cross-examinations, participate in mediation, and file a factum before the rescheduled hearing.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a simplified procedure action regarding the destruction of a tree, the self-represented plaintiff sought costs.

The defendants argued she was not entitled to costs as a federal public servant who allegedly suffered no lost income.

The court applied the principles from Fong v. Chan and Benarroch, finding the plaintiff performed work ordinarily done by a lawyer and incurred an opportunity cost by using vacation time.

The court awarded the plaintiff $5,000 in costs, representing a reasonable allowance for her time and effort.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's professional negligence action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action was commenced in 2012 and had previously been administratively dismissed and reinstated with a strict timetable.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to comply with the timetable, failed to file responding materials, and repeatedly sought adjournments without adequate medical evidence.

The court found the plaintiff's delay to be intentional, contumelious, and inexcusable, causing significant prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed for delay and as an abuse of process.

The defendants were successful on a motion to regularize the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, noting that the plaintiff's combative approach and refusal to accept constructive direction necessitated the motion and the participation of all defense counsel.

The defendants brought a motion to regularize the self-represented plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff had issued a single claim but served different, cut-and-pasted versions on each individual defendant.

The court ordered the plaintiff to prepare, issue, and serve a single 'Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim' containing all allegations against all defendants in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, the court prohibited the plaintiff from initiating any further proceedings or motions without leave of the case management judge.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the law firm representing a defendant in another proceeding, alleging errors in a motion record and improper requests for a case management judge.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the claim should be dismissed.

Finding that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was initiated to express frustration with opposing counsel, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, awarding costs to the defendant.

The applicant successfully applied to enforce an arbitration award and sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented respondent opposed the costs and sought her own costs, raising unlitigated grievances regarding the underlying business dispute.

The court found the applicant's costs claim of $4,968 to be reasonable and proportionate, rejecting the respondent's attempt to re-litigate the merits.

Costs were awarded to the applicant in the amount of $4,968.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave for the corporate defendants to be represented by a non-lawyer, specifically their Vice-President and property manager.

The court considered the relevant factors, including the complexity of the $5,000,000 claim and the fact that the proposed representative was not the sole shareholder.

The court concluded that the legal complexities required counsel and that granting leave would essentially grant a temporary license to practice law.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $80,111.33 following the dismissal of the plaintiff's professional negligence action.

The self-represented plaintiff objected to the lack of detail and alleged duplication of time by the defendant's counsel.

The court found the time spent generally reasonable but made a modest reduction of $5,000 in fees due to the plaintiff's concerns.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $74,461.33, noting the plaintiff's $3 million claim was entirely dismissed, the action involved serious allegations against the defendant's professional reputation, and the plaintiff's conduct lengthened the proceeding.

The self-represented defendant sought to re-open the issue of costs after his initial written submissions failed to reach the judge.

He claimed costs for time spent attending the seven-day trial and for preparation.

Applying the principles from Fong v. Chan, the court held that a self-represented litigant cannot recover costs for time that any litigant would have to devote to the case, such as attending trial.

The court awarded the defendant $1,330 in costs on a partial indemnity basis for preparation time, travel time, and filing fees.