Natasha Wilson

Following an earlier decision striking the plaintiffs’ statement of claim and dismissing the action against Crown defendants, the defendants sought costs of $2,700 for a half‑day motion.

The court acknowledged that the time spent and hourly rate claimed by Crown counsel were reasonable and that costs would normally be awarded to the successful party.

However, the plaintiffs, who were self‑represented, demonstrated that their correspondence and settlement offers regarding costs had gone unanswered by Crown counsel.

The court held that the Crown’s failure to respond to the litigants’ communications was discourteous and inconsistent with the state’s obligation to treat citizens with respect.

In the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion to deny the requested costs despite the defendants’ success on the underlying motion.

Self-represented plaintiffs commenced a lengthy civil action alleging fraud, negligence, misrepresentation, discrimination, and conspiracy against numerous defendants including court officials and the Crown following disputes arising from the assessment of legal fees related to earlier litigation.

The Crown defendants moved to strike the statement of claim.

The court held the pleading disclosed no reasonable cause of action, contained speculation and bald allegations, and failed to plead material facts supporting negligent misrepresentation, negligence, or Charter discrimination claims.

The court further held that the Toronto Assessment Office was not a suable entity and that the action against the Crown was a nullity because the plaintiffs failed to provide the mandatory notice required under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act before commencing the action.