Court File and Parties

CITATION: Crooks v. Foley, 2013 ONSC 4851

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 558/12

DATE: 2013-07-18

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: FERROL CROOKS, Appellant (Plaintiff)

AND:

JOHN DARREN FOLEY and HALTON REGIONAL POLICE SERVICES BOARD, Respondents (Defendants)

BEFORE: MOLLOY, SWINTON and HARVISON YOUNG JJ.

COUNSEL: Ernest J. Guiste, for the Appellant

Robin Squires, for the Halton Regional Police Services Board

HEARD: In writing at Toronto

ENDORSEMENT as to COSTS

[1] Ferrol Crooks appealed to this Court from an Order of the Honourable Justice Stevenson dated March 7, 2012, which dismissed the appellant’s claim against the Halton Regional Police Services Board (“Halton Police”) based on an accepted settlement offer. That appeal was dismissed, for written reasons delivered June 4, 2013: Crooks v. Foley, 2013 ONSC 3282.

[2] Counsel for Mr. Crooks sought leave to file affidavit material and to file a written argument as to costs. Those submissions were delivered June 18, 2013. Responding submissions on behalf of the successful respondent were delivered on June 21, 2013.

[3] Having reviewed the costs submissions of the respondent, we are of the view that the appropriate quantum as to costs is $5000.00 all inclusive. This was a relatively straight-forward matter and this is therefore an appropriate figure to have been in the contemplation of the appellant as reasonable.

[4] The position taken on behalf of the unsuccessful appellant is that he should not be required to pay any costs because of his impecuniosity and the fact that he is an individual pitted against the justice system. An affidavit of Mr. Crooks was enclosed with the written submissions of his counsel.

[5] This is not a matter of public interest litigation where novel legal issues are raised. Mr. Crooks entered into a binding settlement of his claims against the Halton Regional Police Services Board while he was represented by competent counsel. The settlement funds in the amount of $30,000.00 were forwarded to his counsel. Mr. Crooks then sought to resile from the settlement. Stevenson J. held that the settlement was binding and enforceable. This Court upheld that decision. The issue was the enforcement of the settlement, not the merits of Mr. Crooks’ claims against the police.

[6] The affidavit of Mr. Crooks does not demonstrate impecuniosity. He is employed as a tow-truck driver and says he makes “just enough to get by.” He provided no statement of his income or expenses and no information as to any dependents. In the absence of such evidence, even without cross-examination, the bald claim by Mr. Crooks that he is impecunious is insufficient to establish that he is in fact impecunious.

[7] Indeed, the evidence suggests otherwise. Mr. Crooks has an asset readily available to satisfy any costs award made by this Court. The settlement funds paid to his former solicitors continue to be held by them in trust.

[8] Accordingly, an Order shall issue directing Mr. Crooks to pay costs fixed at $5000.00 payable to the Halton Regional Police Services Board, and payable out of the funds held by Mr. Falconer in trust.

MOLLOY, J.

SWINTON J.

HARVISON YOUNG J.

Released: July , 2013