CITATION: Taucar v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), 2014 ONSC 2960
BRAMPTON DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 13-67-00
DATE: 2014-06-26
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HEENEY, PARFETT AND VARPIO JJ.
BETWEEN:
HARUYO TAUCAR
Applicant
– and –
THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO, THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO, KENNETH PAUL SWAN and KENNETH P. SWAN ARBITRATION LTD.
Respondents
Christopher E. Taucar, Counsel for the Applicant
David C. Moore, Counsel for the Respondents
HEARD: March 19, 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION
[1] The Respondents in this matter seek costs for their appearance in Divisional Court.
[2] The Respondents Kenneth P. Swan and Kenneth P. Swan Arbitration Ltd. (the "Swan Respondents") seek substantial indemnification costs in the amount of $15,000 all inclusive. They effectively claim that:
The instant litigation was duplicative of previous proceedings;
The bias allegations as against Mr. Swan are similar to allegations of fraud that can attract substantial indemnity costs; and
That the proceeding was improper, vexatious and unnecessary.
[3] The Respondent, University of Western Ontario, also claims substantial indemnity costs of $8,088.46 all inclusive. They rely largely upon the same grounds as do the Swan Respondents.
[4] The Applicant submits that the Social Justice Tribunal should not be awarded costs. The Applicant further submits that:
(1) Costs generally should be modest in human rights cases so as to accommodate access to justice;
(2) The Applicant had a reasonable expectation of success;
(3) Much of the work had already been done by the Respondents, and as such, the matter was simple for the Respondents; and
(4) The Respondents did not comply with the Rules regarding timing and formatting.
[5] The Applicant submits that she should, at most, owe $4,000 in costs to the Swan Respondents and UWO.
ANALYSIS
[6] We agree with the analysis put forward by the Respondents. As was stated in the substantive decision in this matter, the judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal decision replicated previous litigation and was entirely unfounded. As a result, the continued pursuit of the matter justifies the imposition of substantial indemnity costs. Further, the "bias" allegations against the Swan Respondents are such that substantial indemnity costs are especially warranted with respect to the Swan Respondents.
[7] We note that the question of costs sought by the Respondents is reasonable.
[8] As such, we order the Applicant to pay $15,000 to the Swan Respondents in substantial indemnity costs and order the Applicant to pay the University of Western Ontario $8,088.46 in substantial indemnity costs. These amounts are payable within 30 days of the release of this Order.
Heeney J.
Parfett J.
Varpio J.
Released: June 26, 2014
CITATION: Taucar v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), 2014 ONSC 2960
BRAMPTON DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 13-67-00
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HEENEY, PARFETT AND VARPIO JJ.
BETWEEN:
HARUYO TAUCAR
Applicant
– and –
THE HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO, THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO, KENNETH PAUL SWAN and KENNETH P. SWAN ARBITRATION LTD.
Respondents
REASONS FOR decision
Released: 2014-06-26