Self-represented litigant

The defendant brought an anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff contractor's defamation action.

The action arose from an email the defendant sent to his spouse expressing dissatisfaction with the plaintiff's renovation work.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the email was a private communication between spouses and did not constitute an expression on a matter of public interest.

No costs were awarded.

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 defendants sought costs following their largely successful motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim.

The self-represented plaintiff also sought costs, arguing divided success.

The court found the defendants were entirely justified in bringing the motion and were entitled to costs.

The court awarded the defendants partial indemnity costs in the all-inclusive amount of $12,500, finding the amount fair, reasonable, and consistent with the parties' expectations.

The self-represented plaintiff appealed two interlocutory orders of a Master: one requiring her to post security for costs on the basis that her action was frivolous and vexatious, and another ordering her to pay costs of that motion.

The plaintiff engaged in extensive delay tactics, including failing to file her appeal record and seeking multiple adjournments.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeals, finding no error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or reasonable apprehension of bias by the Master.

The court awarded the respondents costs of the appeals on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiff's obstructive conduct.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion seeking the recusal of the case management judge, alleging bias and a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The plaintiff's allegations included complaints filed with the Canadian Judicial Council, dissatisfaction with procedural orders, and claims that the judge was disrespectful and failed to record a case conference.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court noted that the test for bias is objective and that a litigant's subjective dissatisfaction with procedural orders or the filing of a complaint with the Canadian Judicial Council does not constitute cogent evidence of bias, particularly in a case-managed environment.

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 plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, commenced an action alleging anti-Black discrimination in the workplace.

The defendants sought to schedule a case conference to advance their motion to strike the action on jurisdictional grounds.

The plaintiff resisted scheduling the case conference, asserting she was unable to proceed due to a disability caused by the defendants' conduct.

The case management judge held that while the court must accommodate litigants with disabilities, such accommodation does not extend to indefinite delays that prejudice the defendants' right to have the action determined.

The court scheduled a case conference and directed the plaintiff to consider her position regarding accommodation or retaining counsel.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim for failing to comply with trial directions to deliver affidavits for evidence in chief.

The defendant, who was self-represented after his counsel was removed, brought a motion to adjourn the trial to retain new counsel.

The court found the defendant's non-compliance was deliberate, part of a delay strategy, and showed a profound lack of interest in the proceedings.

Applying the test for striking pleadings, the court struck the defendant's set-off and counterclaim but allowed the defence to stand so the defendant could cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses.

The motion to adjourn was dismissed.

Following successful summary judgment motions by two lawyers dismissing the counterclaims against them in a mortgage enforcement action, the court determined costs.

The self-represented plaintiffs by counterclaim were ordered to pay costs of $3,000 to each lawyer on a partial indemnity basis, as the lawyers should not have been made parties to the action and incurred unnecessary legal expenses.

The applicant, a convicted sex offender, brought an application for habeas corpus and Charter damages challenging the revocation of his day parole and the search of his vehicle at a halfway house.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the habeas corpus claims, finding that the parole system under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act provides a complete and expert process for review.

The court also held that the applicant's Charter claims for damages could not be determined on the limited evidentiary record of an application and converted those claims into an action, ordering the applicant to file a statement of claim.

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.

Following a summary judgment motion where the defendant successfully had the plaintiff's main action dismissed but was denied summary judgment on his counterclaim, the court determined costs.

The defendant, who was partially self-represented, sought costs of $26,325.

The plaintiff failed to provide a costs outline.

The court awarded the defendant all-inclusive costs of $10,000, taking into account the simplified procedure rules and the defendant's status as a self-represented litigant for part of the proceedings.

The Attorney General defendants were entirely successful on a Rule 21 motion to strike the self-represented plaintiff's action.

They sought costs of $4,100, despite incurring $12,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court noted that the fact costs are sought by salaried Crown Counsel does not affect the quantum.

The court found the requested amount fair and reasonable and awarded costs of $4,100 to the Attorney General defendants.

Following the successful striking of the self-represented plaintiff's libel claim on a Rule 21 motion, the successful police defendants sought costs.

The defendants claimed partial indemnity costs of $11,345.00 but voluntarily reduced their request to $4,000.00 in consideration of the plaintiff's self-represented status and ability to pay.

The court awarded the requested $4,000.00, ordering it payable in any event of the cause rather than forthwith, as the broader action was continuing.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for reconsideration of a Rule 49 application, the respondent law firm sought costs.

The applicant argued that as a self-represented law firm, the respondent was not entitled to costs without proving lost opportunity costs.

The court agreed there was no evidence of lost opportunity costs, precluding a partial indemnity award.

However, exercising its general discretion under section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court awarded nominal costs of $750 to the respondent to discourage inappropriate litigation behavior.

Following a five-day trial on a motion to change where the applicant successfully terminated spousal support, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondent, who was self-represented, advanced untenable claims for retroactive and indefinite support before abandoning them on the final day of trial.

The court found the respondent's litigation conduct unreasonable and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs of $32,257.39, representing 70 percent of full recovery.

Following a 14-day family law trial, the self-represented respondent sought costs on a near full recovery scale.

The court found the respondent was entirely successful on major issues and had made multiple reasonable offers to settle, which the applicant failed to beat.

The court noted the applicant's appalling behaviour at trial, unreasonable positions, and failure to make any formal offers to settle.

The respondent was awarded $200,000 in costs, which included compensation for his own time and his assistant's time.

The final amount payable by the applicant was reduced to $138,075 after setting off future periodic and compensatory spousal support obligations.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $85,560.34 following the dismissal of the self-represented plaintiff's $4 million professional negligence claim.

The plaintiff did not file responding costs submissions but was known to be impecunious, receiving Ontario Disability Support Program payments.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs despite the plaintiff's complaints to the Law Society against the defendants' counsel.

Taking into account the plaintiff's financial circumstances as a factor going to the amount of costs, the court fixed costs at $10,000 inclusive.

Following a 13-day trial where a jury found the defendant transit commission not negligent for the plaintiff's slip and fall, the defendant sought costs.

The self-represented plaintiff argued she was impecunious and should not pay costs.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct unreasonable, noting she rejected multiple settlement offers and made unfounded allegations of evidence tampering.

Applying the principle that impecuniosity does not shield a party who acts unreasonably, the court awarded the defendant $125,491.71 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.