Paloma Ellard

Following dismissal of a civil action, the successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis totaling over $48,000.

The self-represented plaintiff argued that his limited financial means and significant debt should justify declining any costs award.

The court acknowledged that a party’s ability to pay may be considered but emphasized that denying costs to a successful party is reserved for rare circumstances.

Given the repetitive nature of the litigation and the need to discourage continued re-litigation of previously rejected arguments, the court awarded reduced costs.

The court exercised discretion to grant approximately half the requested fees plus full disbursements and applicable HST.

The defendants moved under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a civil action alleging misfeasance in public office and related claims arising from a temporary cease trade order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The plaintiff alleged the order had expired and that subsequent prosecutions and regulatory proceedings were therefore unlawful.

The court held that the validity of the cease trade order had already been determined in multiple prior regulatory and criminal proceedings, including a guilty plea and unsuccessful appeals.

Applying issue estoppel and the doctrine of abuse of process, the court concluded that the plaintiff was attempting to relitigate issues already conclusively determined.

The action was dismissed with prejudice.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that the respondent's submission to arbitration was not time-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's interpretation of the commercial agreement, agreeing that the parties were obliged to attempt to resolve the dispute over information delivery and costs before proceeding to arbitration.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.