M. Caceres

The self-represented plaintiffs commenced an action against Hydro One for $150 million after their power was disconnected.

Their initial Statement of Claim was struck with leave to amend.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the time to file their Amended Statement of Claim, and the defendant brought a cross-motion to strike the amended pleadings.

The court granted the extension of time to correct the filing irregularity but struck the Amended Statement of Claim in its entirety, finding it remained replete with irrelevant, scandalous, and inflammatory statements, and failed to plead material facts.

Leave to issue an Amended Amended Statement of Claim was denied, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay a previous costs award before bringing any further motions to amend.

The defendant was successful on cross-motions to strike pleadings and sought costs of $7,224.66.

The self-represented plaintiffs did not challenge the entitlement to costs but disputed the quantum, particularly travel disbursements and agency fees.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01, reduced the travel disbursements to a reasonable expectation, disallowed agency fees that could have been avoided by teleconference, and deferred costs related to the statement of defence to the final disposition of the action.

Costs were fixed at $4,698.00 payable by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sought significant damages from Hydro One for power disconnection, alleging breaches of the Criminal Code and Electricity Act.

Both parties brought motions to strike pleadings.

The plaintiffs' motion to strike Hydro One's defence was dismissed as the defence complied with pleading rules.

Hydro One's motion to strike the plaintiffs' Statement of Claim and Reply was granted because the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action, primarily relying on statutory breaches which are not standalone civil causes of action.

The court granted leave for the plaintiffs to file an amended Statement of Claim.