Self-represented litigant

The court considered whether an action should be dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff had commenced a claim against an insurer and the insurer’s lawyers arising from earlier accident benefits litigation and an alleged settlement dispute.

Similar claims against the lawyer defendants had previously been struck and other related claims had already been addressed in ongoing litigation.

The court held that commencing a separate action to pursue the same issues and to attempt to circumvent a prior costs order constituted an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed on its face under Rule 2.1 without costs.

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.

On a Rule 2.1 screening process, the court reviewed an application naming multiple telecommunications companies as respondents.

The materials included no affidavit and consisted largely of unsworn documents and legal materials.

The court noted that the notice of application made no allegations or claims for relief against one respondent and raised concerns that the proceeding might be frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court directed the registrar to provide notice that dismissal of the application against that respondent was under consideration and stayed the proceeding against that respondent pending written submissions.

A self‑represented defendant brought a motion seeking costs of an action after the action was administratively dismissed for delay under Form 48D.

The responding party argued that the issue of costs had already been determined in earlier proceedings before a master and upheld on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court held that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel barred the renewed request for costs because the entitlement had already been finally determined.

The administrative dismissal order was issued without knowledge of the prior rulings and did not reopen the issue.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding party on a partial indemnity basis.

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 the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim on a Rule 21 motion, the successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff failed to deliver costs submissions despite extensions granted by the court.

The court held that there was no basis for substantial indemnity costs and exercised its discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Balancing fairness, compensation, and access to justice, the court reduced the defendants’ requested costs and fixed partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff.

Following a successful response to a refusals motion, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs arising from the defendant’s extensive and unsuccessful motion materials seeking answers to numerous discovery questions.

The defendant, self‑represented, argued that costs should be reduced due to his status, alleged inability to pay, and the fact that the plaintiff’s legal fees were funded by her employer.

The court applied the factors in Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that self‑representation does not reduce responsibility for costs when a party brings an extensive and unsuccessful motion.

Although the motion materials were excessively lengthy, the conduct did not justify substantial indemnity costs.

Partial indemnity costs were fixed with reductions to certain research time and preparation claims.

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.

Following the dismissal of a motion by a proposed intervenor seeking to be added as a party to an unrelated civil action, the court addressed costs.

The court held that the proposed intervenor had no connection to the underlying action and that the motion raised no issue of public interest or bona fide legal concern.

Exercising its discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court determined that costs should be awarded to the defendants despite their representation by Crown counsel.

While acknowledging the unsuccessful party’s limited financial means, the court emphasized that litigants, including incarcerated individuals, remain responsible for the costs consequences of misguided or unnecessary procedural steps.

Costs of $500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes were awarded.

Following an order striking the plaintiff’s action without leave to amend, the defendants sought costs for both the struck 2012 action and an earlier withdrawn 2008 action.

The self‑represented plaintiff objected to the amounts as excessive but provided no particulars.

The court held that the hourly rates charged by counsel were reasonable and could be awarded on a partial indemnity basis, and alternatively justified substantial indemnity costs given the plaintiff’s allegations of fraud and conspiracy and his abuse of the court’s process.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1), the court fixed costs for the defendants for both actions.

Following a family law trial involving custody, access, support, equalization, and divorce, the court considered competing claims for costs.

The moving party, self-represented, sought significant reimbursement of expenses, while the responding party sought partial or substantial indemnity costs.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and considering the divided success at trial, the court held that neither party was clearly more successful.

The court also considered the financial circumstances of the self-represented party and the objectives of fairness and promoting cooperation between the parties.

In the circumstances, the court concluded that the fairest result was that each party bear their own costs.

The applicant sought a declaration under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act that the respondent was a vexatious litigant.

The respondent had initiated numerous actions against medical professionals, regulatory investigators, and opposing counsel, including re‑litigating a medical malpractice claim previously dismissed on summary judgment.

The court found the respondent’s conduct exhibited multiple indicators of vexatious proceedings, including repeated litigation of decided issues, actions lacking a cause of action, and litigation against opposing counsel.

Considering the pattern of abusive litigation and the need to protect the court’s process and potential defendants, the court declared the respondent a vexatious litigant.

The respondent was prohibited from commencing further proceedings without leave of the Superior Court of Justice.

Following reasons granting summary judgment and dismissing the action, the court determined the issue of costs.

The successful defendant sought $5,000 in partial indemnity costs despite incurring substantially higher expenses in defending the action and bringing the summary judgment motion.

The self-represented plaintiff sought $65,000 in costs despite losing the motion and the action.

The court reiterated that costs generally follow the event and serve an indemnity function while encouraging settlement.

The court fixed costs payable to the defendant at $5,000.

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.

The court considered a motion to dismiss an appeal arising from an arbitrator’s decision in a legal malpractice action.

The appellant, a self‑represented litigant, had repeatedly failed over several years to comply with procedural requirements and court‑ordered timelines, including a peremptory order requiring the filing of an appeal record.

Despite multiple adjournments and clear directions from the court, the appellant did not file a compliant appeal record and instead served an incomplete affidavit referencing missing exhibits.

Applying Rule 60.12 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that continued delay and non‑compliance justified dismissal.

The appeal was dismissed for failure to comply with the interlocutory order and prolonged delay.

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.