CITATION: Copeland & Soucie v. H.M.Q., 2014 ONSC 1098

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 251/13

DATE: 20140224

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: LEONARD COPELAND and DANIELLE GENEVIVE SOUCIE and others v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO as represented by the MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES

BEFORE: KITELEY, NORDHEIMER & RADY JJ.

COUNSEL: D. Kirwin & K. Peacocke, for the applicants

L. Favreau & J. Parker, for the respondent

HEARD: Written submissions

ENDORSEMENT – COSTS

[1] On January 28, 2014, this court released its reasons dismissing the application for judicial review in which declaratory relief was sought respecting the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17 (“RTA”) to land leases held by the applicants in Rondeau Provincial Park. We invited written submissions on costs. We have now received and reviewed those written submissions.

[2] The respondent seeks costs in the amount of $16,565.50 inclusive of disbursements and HST. The applicants submit that there should be no order as to costs but that, if costs are awarded, they should be in an amount of $7,500.

[3] In support of their submission that there should be no award of costs, the applicants say that this proceeding was one of broader public interest. We do not agree. The issue raised by the applicants was entirely personal to their particular positions as cottage owners in a Provincial Park. There is no interest involved in this case beyond that of the applicants. There is certainly no broad public interest raised save and except for the possible public interest in the interpretation of certain statutes. That is not the type of public interest that is engaged when the issue of costs is being determined. This reality distinguishes this case from the one relied upon by the applicants, namely Smith v. Inco Ltd., 2013 ONCA 724 that, we note, was a class proceeding and is distinguishable on that basis also.

[4] In approaching the task of fixing costs, we are cognizant of the general principles applicable to that task. In particular, we are aware that costs should be fixed in an amount that is fair and reasonable – see Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.).

[5] In our view, but for one factor, the amount sought by the respondent, having regard to the time spent by counsel, the appropriate hourly rates to be charged, the materials filed on the application and the amount of time spent on the hearing is a reasonable one. It is certainly an amount that falls within the reasonable expectation of the parties since the applicants had sought over $23,000 in their draft Bill of Costs.

[6] However, the one factor that militates against the amount sought by the respondent is the fact that the respondent raised an issue regarding the jurisdiction of this court to entertain the application for judicial review. That issue consumed some amount of time, both in the facta filed and at the hearing. The respondent was unsuccessful on that issue. A reduction in the amount of costs must be made to reflect that divided success.

[7] Taking that factor into account, we are of the view that the appropriate amount for costs is $12,500. The applicants are therefore ordered to pay to the respondent the amount of $12,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST within 30 days.

KITELEY J.

NORDHEIMER J.

RADY J.

DATE: February 24, 2014