Self-represented litigant

The court issued a costs endorsement following previous orders for costs submissions in two related family law files.

The respondent, William Ndze Fuhgeh, failed to comply with page limits and filing deadlines for his submissions, leading the court to disregard his non-compliant documentation.

The applicants, Marie Marielle Edith Bernard, and intervenors, Marc Coderre and Marie Helene Godbout, sought costs, arguing Fuhgeh's conduct amounted to an abuse of process by attempting to set aside numerous orders and incorporating excessive exhibits by reference.

Fuhgeh argued against costs, alleging judicial bias and breaches of natural justice and the Charter.

The court found Bernard and the intervenors were successful, Fuhgeh's conduct constituted an abuse of process, and awarded costs to Bernard ($950) and the intervenors ($8500).

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 21 to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim (AFAC), particularly a claim for negligent investigation against the employer.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion under Rule 26 to further amend the AFAC, including adding claims for intentional infliction of mental distress and defamation with malice.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the negligent investigation claim, affirming that the tort does not extend to employers conducting internal investigations, even with recent OHSA amendments.

The court partially granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, allowing amendments for intentional infliction of mental distress and certain defamation particulars, and for rephrasing reputation paragraphs, but denied other proposed amendments due to late filing and procedural fairness concerns.

This is a costs ruling following a summary judgment motion in a family law dispute concerning property valuations and equalization.

The applicant sought $16,203 in costs, while the self-represented respondent sought $12,807.

The court found that both parties contributed to the procedural impasse and the need for the motion, with the respondent's delayed and inadequate disclosure and the applicant's over-reaching valuation claims.

Emphasizing the importance of timely disclosure and rational litigation conduct, the court ordered the parties to share the costs of the motion equally.

The applicant was awarded fixed costs of $8,060 against the respondent.

This decision addresses costs arising from a security for costs motion and an adjournment motion.

The court considered the length of costs submissions, the entitlement of a self-represented litigant to costs, and the factors under Rule 57.01.

The self-represented plaintiff was awarded $2,000 for a successful adjournment motion, but was ordered to pay the defendants $12,037.71 in substantial indemnity costs due to her obstructive conduct throughout the proceeding, which tended to lengthen it.

This is a costs endorsement following the dismissal of a motion brought by Donald Bodkin in a mortgage enforcement action.

First National Financial Corporation and the Defendants (John Doe 1 and John Doe 2) sought substantial indemnity costs from Mr. Bodkin.

Mr. Bodkin argued for no costs, citing the novelty of the case, or for partial indemnity.

The court rejected the claim for substantial indemnity, finding Mr. Bodkin's conduct did not warrant such a sanction, and also rejected the argument that the case was novel.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to First National Financial Corporation in the amount of $9,000 and to the Defendants in the amount of $8,500, payable by Mr. Bodkin within 30 days.

The applicant, self-represented, brought a motion for an ex parte final order in a complex family law matter during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The motion sought extensive relief including parenting arrangements, significant spousal and child support, and property division.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, dismissed the motion, finding the applicant's materials (over 100 pages) to be voluminous, unfocused, and unsuitable for an ex parte final order given the complexity of the claims and the respondent's lack of active participation.

The court urged the applicant to retain counsel and directed that any future urgent motions must be brief, efficient, and focused, not exceeding 10 pages.

The Paragon Defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the self-represented plaintiff, Tanya Rebello, under Rule 56.01(1)(e) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

They argued that her action was frivolous and vexatious and that she had insufficient assets to pay adverse costs.

The court determined that a prior ruling under Rule 2.1.01, which found the action not frivolous or vexatious on its face, did not bind the current motion due to different tests and evidentiary considerations.

The Master found good reason to believe the action was frivolous and vexatious, citing incredible allegations and the plaintiff's conduct, and that she had not demonstrated sufficient assets.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $23,713.93 in security for costs.

The self-represented plaintiff, Brian Charbonneau, sought an urgent determination for the defendants' motion for summary judgment to proceed, requesting its dismissal and the scheduling of mediation.

The underlying dispute involved an erroneous land conveyance from 2011.

The plaintiff argued urgency due to potential farming business losses of $4,500 for the season.

The court, applying the Provincial Direction's definition of "urgent" (immediate and significant financial repercussions), found that the matter was not urgent, as the issue had been ongoing since 2015 and the potential loss was not deemed "significant." The request for urgency was denied.

The plaintiff, Ryan Dean, a self-represented litigant, sought $25 million in damages against numerous defendants, including the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) and several registered immigration consultants (Complainant Defendants), following his removal from the ICCRC board of directors.

The Complainant Defendants moved to strike Dean's claim for unlawful means conspiracy, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

The court found that Dean failed to plead any unlawful conduct by the Complainant Defendants, as filing complaints with a regulator is a lawful act and not unlawful per se.

The claim also lacked essential elements of conspiracy, such as a clear agreement and purpose.

The court dismissed Dean's claim against the Complainant Defendants and denied leave to amend, as any new cause of action would be time-barred.

The applicant mother sought an urgent motion to enforce a 2018 final custody order, alleging the respondent father had overheld their three children for over a month, contrary to the order.

The court found urgency established, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the parenting status quo for children's well-being during the COVID-19 period, and scheduled a teleconference hearing with abridged timelines for submissions.

The applicant father brought an ex parte motion to restore supervised access to his children after the Children's Aid Society (CAS) ceased supervision due to COVID-19.

The motion was dismissed without prejudice because the applicant failed to provide notice to the respondent's counsel and had a history of abusing ex parte proceedings.

The court found the materials voluminous, disorganized, and containing inadmissible evidence.

The court also provided general guidance for separated parents addressing access during the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing good faith efforts and child-focused resolutions.

The plaintiff, Roger Callow, commenced an action against Justice U.C. MacLeod after Justice MacLeod had previously dismissed one of Callow's actions under Rule 2.1.

The new claim largely replicated the previous one, adding an allegation against Justice MacLeod for dismissing the prior action.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1, dismissed the current action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

It was emphasized that challenges to judicial decisions must be made by appeal, not by commencing a new action against the judge, who enjoys absolute immunity for actions taken in their judicial role.

The applicant father filed an urgent motion to change a final order to obtain sole custody of his 15-year-old son, Quinn, alleging emotional and physical abuse.

Operating under the Superior Court of Justice's COVID-19 emergency protocols, the court found the matter urgent due to the allegations concerning the child's safety and well-being.

The court directed the applicant to file a revised, sworn affidavit providing specific details and to serve the respondent, while reserving the right to reconsider urgency after the respondent's material is filed.

Detailed procedural directions for electronic filing and service were also provided to facilitate the hearing during the suspension of regular court operations.

The City of Toronto sought permission to issue a writ of seizure and sale against Ms. Mohammadi-Kia, more than six years after a 2004 civil judgment for social assistance fraud restitution.

Ms. Mohammadi-Kia, self-represented, opposed the motion, arguing unjust conviction, inadequate legal representation, limited means, a belief the debt was waived, and that the target property was not hers.

The court allowed the City to issue the writ, finding the City adequately explained its delay and did not intend to waive the debt.

While Ms. Mohammadi-Kia genuinely believed the debt was no longer pursued, she failed to demonstrate detrimental reliance.

The court also declined to award costs to the City, noting its delay in seeking the writ.

The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board applied for an order declaring Darren John a vexatious litigant under s. 140(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

John had initiated numerous actions against the Board and other parties, many of which were dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and had accumulated over $140,000 in unpaid costs.

He also engaged in abusive conduct and failed to comply with court rules.

The court found that John persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted and conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner, aligning with the principles established in Re Lang Michener.

The application was granted, prohibiting John from instituting or continuing any proceedings in Ontario courts without leave of a Superior Court judge.

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of a contempt motion brought by the plaintiffs against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto (CAST), its counsel, and legal assistant.

The court found the motion to be without merit and the defendants wholly successful.

Despite the plaintiff being self-represented and having been warned about costs, the court determined that costs should follow the event due to the serious nature of the allegations.

Applying the factors under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and balancing the indemnity principle with access to justice, the court awarded the defendants $7,500 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, a reduction from their requested $10,000.

The court fixed nominal costs against the self-represented plaintiff following successful summary judgment motions by the defendants in a medical negligence action.

Despite the plaintiff's serious health issues and lack of means, the court found that the plaintiff's failure to secure expert reports and refusal to follow former counsel's advice necessitated the summary judgment motions, entitling the defendants to costs.

However, considering the plaintiff's inability to pay and the non-frivolous nature of the initial lawsuit, a nominal award was deemed appropriate.

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.

This is a costs decision following a 10-day matrimonial trial.

The applicant, Ian David Kirby, sought substantial costs from the self-represented respondent, Katherine Lynn Kirby.

The court found Ian to be more successful overall in the underlying trial and that Katherine's conduct, including prolonging the hearing and making unreasonable allegations, warranted a costs award against her.

While acknowledging Katherine's mental illness, the court determined that her unreasonableness contributed significantly to the litigation's length and expense.

The court awarded the applicant $150,000 in all-inclusive costs, representing an enhanced substantial indemnity recovery (approximately 78% of his post-2016 actual costs), to be paid from the respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds.

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.