CITATION: Saiyegh v. Canadian Intelligence (RCMP), 2011 ONSC 2917
COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1646
DATE: 2011/05/12
ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT, SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
FARIS HAZIM ABDUL-RAHEEM SAIYEGH
Plaintiff/Appellant
- and -
CANADIAN INTELLIGENCE (RCMP), UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, (CLAUDE LAGUE, WILLIAM HALLETT, MICHAEL MUNRO, CLAUDE GIROUX, NORMAND SEGUIN, GABY ST PIERRE, MARC RAVIGNAT, ISABELLE MAYRAND, CAMERON TIESMA, PETER KOPPEL, MATHEW ARCHIBALD, MICHEL NGANBE, VOICU GROZA, JEAN-LOUIS TRUDEL, BERTRAND JODIN, CATHERINE MAVRIPLIS, PATRICK PROVENCHER, JEAN-PHILIPPE SEGUIN), OTTAWA POLICE (DETECTIVE OLIVER WALROND), OTTAWA GENERAL HOSPITAL (BRIAN WEITZMAN), ATTACKER “YANEEK” (OTTAWA POLICE REPORT NO. 09-16436), ROOMMATE “MICHELLE POTTER” (WINDSOR POLICE REPORT NO. 08-14142), LANDLORD “MY NGUGEN”
Defendants/Respondents
HEARD: By Written Submissions
Mr. Faris Hazim Abdul-Raheem Saiyegh, on his own behalf
Sean Van Helden, for the University of Ottawa, and the associated individual defendants
Brad Callaghan, for Dr. Brian Weitzman
DECISION WITH RESPECT TO LEGAL COSTS
Power J.
[1] On February 14, 2011, I issued Reasons for Decision with respect to motions which I heard in this appeal on February 3, 2011.
[2] The appeal to this Court was from the decision of McLean J. dated July 13, 2010, in which he struck the statement of claim in the action without leave to amend. For the reasons given in my February 14th decision, I dismissed the appeal. I also ordered that no further proceedings be continued or instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against any defendant named in these proceedings except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court of Justice. I concluded my reasons as follows:
Costs
[35] In the event that within 30 days following the release of these Reasons for Decision the parties are unable to conclude an agreement with respect to the costs of these motions, they may make brief written submissions to me. The individual submissions should not exceed five typewritten pages. If written submissions become necessary because of a failure of the parties to reach an agreement, the respondents should deliver their submissions first. The appellant will then have 30 days within which to file his submissions in response to the submissions of the respondents. Following delivery of the appellant’s submissions, the respondents shall have a further 15 days to reply should they wish to do so.
[3] I have now had an opportunity to read and consider the written submissions received from the appellant and the moving party/respondents.
[4] Sean Van Helden, counsel for the successful parties, wrote to me on March 14, 2011, as follows:
Please find enclosed our cost submissions in the form of Form 57B pursuant to the Decision dated February 14, 2011 with respect to the above-noted matter.
Following the release of your decision, we had agreed with the Plaintiff that neither side would seek costs with respect to this matter. We forwarded a draft order confirming this to the Plaintiff for his agreement as to form and content, but the Plaintiff did not respond. Instead, we have learned that he reneged on the agreement and attended the Court House in early March trying to file his costs submissions. He has also requested that previous costs awards against him be voided.
The enclosed Costs Outline is an accurate account the preparation for and attendance at the motions before Justice Roy in January, which were adjourned to February 3, 2011, and the motion before you which was heard on February 3, 2011.
Please contact me should you have any questions or require any further information.
[5] In his Costs Outline attached to the foregoing letter Mr. Van Helden detailed the following claims on a full indemnity basis:
Fees
$10,144.00
HST on Fees
$1,318.72
Disbursements with HST
$568.62
Total Fees, Taxes and Disbursements
$12,031.34
[6] He estimates fees, on a partial indemnity basis, in the amount of $4,730. However, Mr. Van Helden made no submissions beyond setting out these amounts.
[7] Mr. Callaghan, in his Costs Outline filed on behalf of Dr. Weitzman on February 8, 2011, set out his claim for costs as follows: $1,122 on a partial indemnity basis and $1,496 on a substantial indemnity basis. He did not file any further submissions.
[8] The appellant filed various documents on February 7th, March 5th, March 14th, April 14th, April 15th and April 26th, 2011. Most of these documents have nothing to do with the issue of costs of the motions before me. However, I have read and considered these documents.
[9] I must admit that I have encountered some difficulty understanding the appellant’s submissions. However, it appears that he is asking this Court to make an award in his favour in the amount of $3,297.92 for disbursements and something to compensate him for 76 hours of work put in by him on these matters.
[10] In the circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to an award of costs. I need add nothing further to my original Reasons for Decision in explanation of this conclusion.
[11] However, the respondents represented by Messrs Van Helden and Callaghan are entitled to an award of costs in their favour on the grounds that their clients were successful on the motions and because there is no good reason why an award should not be made in their favour. Notwithstanding that it appears that there was an agreement between the parties that no party would seek an award of costs, the appellant breached that agreement.
[12] Dr. Weitzman’s involvement was minimal in the sense that, while he supported the motion by Mr. Van Helden’s clients, he did not file any written materials. Therefore, insofar as Dr. Weitzman is concerned, I make an award of costs in the amount of $1,000 all-inclusive – i.e., inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.
[13] Had Mr. Van Helden argued strenuously for an award of costs on a scale higher than the partial indemnity rate, I would have made an award of costs on, at least, the substantial indemnity scale. However, since no such request has been made, a costs award should be made to his clients on a partial indemnity basis only. The partial indemnity claim is a very moderate one and, therefore, I award costs to Mr. Van Helden’s clients on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements and taxes.
[14] In the result, therefore, an order will issue requiring Faris Hazim Abdul-Raheem Saiyegh to forthwith pay the costs of these matters fixed at $1,000 and $5,000 respectively (i.e., $1,000 to Ottawa General Hospital (Brian Weitzman); $5,000 to University of Ottawa, (Claude Lague); William Hallett; Michael Munro; Claude Giroux; Normand Seguin; Gaby St Pierre; Marc Ravignat; Isabelle Mayrand; Cameron Tiesma; Peter Koppel; Mathew Archibald; Michel Nganbe; Voicu Groza; Jean-Louis Trudel; Bertrand Jodin; Catherine Mavriplis; Patrick Provencher; and Jean-Pierre Seguin).
[15] Order accordingly.
Power J.
Released: May 12, 2011
CITATION: Saiyegh v. Canadian Intelligence (RCMP), 2011 ONSC 2917
COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1646
DATE: 2011/05/12
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
(DIVISIONAL COURT)
B E T W E E N:
FARIS HAZIM ABDUL-RAHEEM SAIYEGH
Plaintiff/Appellant
- and –
CANADIAN INTELLIGENCE (RCMP), UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA, (CLAUDE LAGUE, WILLIAM HALLETT, MICHAEL MUNRO, CLAUDE GIROUX, NORMAND SEGUIN, GABY ST PIERRE, MARC RAVIGNAT, ISABELLE MAYRAND, CAMERON TIESMA, PETER KOPPEL, MATHEW ARCHIBALD, MICHEL NGANBE, VOICU GROZA, JEAN-LOUIS TRUDEL, BERTRAND JODIN, CATHERINE MAVRIPLIS, PATRICK PROVENCHER, JEAN-PHILIPPE SEGUIN), OTTAWA POLICE (DETECTIVE OLIVER WALROND), OTTAWA GENERAL HOSPITAL (BRIAN WEITZMAN), ATTACKER “YANEEK” (OTTAWA POLICE REPORT NO. 09-16436), ROOMMATE “MICHELLE POTTER” (WINDSOR POLICE REPORT NO. 08-14142), LANDLORD “MY NGUGEN”
Defendants/Respondents
DECISION WITH RESPECT TO LEGAL COSTS
Power J.
Released: May 12, 2011