Court File and Parties

ONSC 6208 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 457/12 DATE: 20121101

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic, Moving Party/Applicant AND: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as Represented by the Attorney General of Canada, The Commissioner of Firearms, The Registrar of Firearms and the Chief Firearms Officer, Responding Parties/Respondents

BEFORE: Pardu J.

COUNSEL: Shaun O'Brien and Elichai Shaffir, for the Moving Party/Applicant Gina M. Scarcella and Christine Mohr, for the Responding Parties/Respondents Robert A. Centa and Tina H. Lie, for the City of Toronto as Proposed Intervenors

ENDORSEMENT AS To COSTS

[1] Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada seeks costs from the Barbra Schlifer Commemorative Clinic and from the City of Toronto, following dismissal of the motion by the City of Toronto for leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal from a decision of a motion judge refusing an interlocutory injunction restraining the federal government from making changes to a firearms registry, and following dismissal of a motion by the clinic for leave to appeal from the decision of the motion judge.

[2] The federal government seeks costs on a partial indemnity scale in the sum of $16,235.75, on the basis that there is no reason why costs should not follow the result.

[3] Clearly the issues were important to the parties. The matter was argued on an urgent basis, within a week following the decision of the motion judge. The federal government argues that the motion for leave to intervene and for leave to appeal were entirely without merit.

[4] The clinic and the City of Toronto do not take issue with the amount of costs however both submit that given the important public interests raised by the motions, costs should not be awarded.

[5] I accept the argument of the city that the usual rule is that intervenors are neither granted nor awarded costs. (See Metropolitan Stores MTS Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Local 832, 1990 11291 (MB KB), [1990] M.J. No. 590, Zylberberg v. Sudbury (City) Board of Education (Director) (1988), 1988 189 (ON CA), 65 O.R. (2d) 641 (C.A.), 538745 Ontario Inc. v. Windsor (City) (1988), 1988 4545 (ON CA), 64 O.R. (2d) 38).

[6] The City had a view of public policy that was different from that of the federal government. I have no reason to believe that it acted in bad faith. Its submissions seeking leave to intervene on the motion for leave to appeal were very brief, and did not add significantly to the time requirements of this matter. In these circumstances I do not award costs against the City of Toronto.

[7] The Clinic is a non-profit organization dedicated to the welfare of women who have suffered from violence. Last year it ran a small deficit. The clinic advanced a position which otherwise might not have been litigated for lack of standing or resources on the part of an individual. It advanced a claim that it perceived to be in the public interest and which in fact raised issues of public importance. I have no doubt that it had a genuine interest in the issues in dispute. As the clinic notes in its submissions, “The Federal Respondents were able to delete the data in the registry in accordance with their implementation plan and there has been no evidence of any negative impact at all on the public interest” from the bringing of the motion for leave to appeal.

[8] Under these circumstances, I decline to award costs against the clinic in favour of the federal government.

Pardu J.

Date: November 1, 2012