3 total
Self-represented litigants denied additional costs for personal time spent in litigation.
Following a prior costs endorsement, self-represented respondents sought leave to file a reply and requested reconsideration of the court’s costs determination.
The underlying application sought a declaration regarding the validity of several leases and had been dismissed, resulting in success for the respondents.
The self-represented respondents argued they should receive compensation for time spent preparing and attending the proceeding.
Applying Rule 57.04(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles in Fong v. Chan, the court held that costs for self-represented litigants are only appropriate where the work performed is equivalent to that ordinarily done by counsel.
The court found the respondents’ activities did not meet that threshold and declined to alter the previous costs award.
Self‑represented litigants denied costs absent proof of lawyer‑like work or opportunity cost.
Self‑represented litigants sought costs after successfully defending an application concerning the validity of several leases.
The court applied the principles from Fong v. Chan governing costs for self‑represented parties, which require proof that the litigant performed work ordinarily done by counsel and incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity.
The applicants failed to demonstrate that they performed lawyer‑like work or suffered a compensable opportunity cost.
However, limited disbursements directly related to the proceeding were allowed.
The court awarded only $476.91 in recoverable disbursements and otherwise dismissed the claim for costs.
Superior Court lacks jurisdiction to terminate residential land leases; exclusive jurisdiction belongs to Landlord and Tenant Board.
The applicants purchased a campsite property and subsequently sought to significantly increase the rent for several cabin owners who leased land on the site.
When the cabin owners challenged the increase at the Landlord and Tenant Board, the applicants brought an application to the Superior Court seeking to declare the leases null and void and to evict the respondents, arguing the leases violated the Planning Act and the Statute of Frauds.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the cabins were residential units within a land lease community under the Residential Tenancies Act, and therefore the Landlord and Tenant Board had exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters regarding the termination of the tenancies.
