SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: M. Martha Coady, Applicant;
and
The Law Society of Upper Canada, Respondent;
HEARD: April 28, 2003; written submissions on costs May 20, 30, 2003
BEFORE: Lane, J.
COUNSEL: M. Martha Coady, Applicant, in person;
Deborah McPhadden, for the Respondent.
E N D O R S E M E N T (C OS T S)
1On May 1, 2003, I dismissed this application for judicial review as premature because the proceeding at issue was still under way. I have now received submissions on the matter of costs.
2The material was served on the respondents in the hearing room at about 9:30 am., returnable before me at 10 am. The respondent appeared on thirty minutes notice but did not seek an adjournment, preferring to proceed on the material before me.
3Counsel for the respondent did not seek any costs for preparation, as there could not be any. She asked for counsel fee of $1500 for the hearing, which lasted until mid-afternoon. That is slightly more than the $1400 which the costs grid allows for two hours. The hearing began at 10:50 am., broke for lunch at 1:15, resumed at 2:15 and finished after 3 pm. Something in the order of three hours and fifteen minutes is a reasonable estimate. That is the best part of a day, for which the maximum under the grid would be $2100. In my opinion, the $1500 requested is an appropriate amount for partial indemnity costs.
4Counsel for the respondent submitted that there was no reason why the usual order for costs in favour of the winning party should not be followed. The applicant differed. She submitted that this was a case where a costs order should be made against the respondent, despite the fact that it was successful, because it had engaged in improper conduct. In support, she filed a 65-paragraph submission detailing her criticisms of the manner in which the Law Society has pursued its prosecution of her. These criticisms begin with the alleged absence of any sworn complaint against her to begin the prosecution and continue from there. I have reviewed them all and in my view they are matters which are still before the Committee, such as allegations of failure to disclose, improper contacts with the media, whether a statement of facts was properly obtained from her, refusal to stop the hearing when the notice of this present application was served, disregard of statutory procedures and persistent refusal to comply with the law. It would be as premature for me to consider these matters on a costs application as it would be for me to have heard the applicant’s judicial review application in the first place.
5I agree with counsel for applicant that there is no good reason why costs should not follow the event. The respondent will have its costs fixed at $1500.
Lane, J.
DATE: 23 June, 2003