DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 582/12
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Pascal Jasmin, Plaintiff (Appellant)
Questrade Inc., Defendant (Respondent)
BEFORE: Mr. Justice H.J. Wilton-Siegel
COUNSEL: Pascal Jasmin, Self-represented Plaintiff (Appellant)
Lawrence J. Horowitz, for the Defendant (Respondent)
HEARD: BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
1The respondent Questrade Inc. (the “respondent”) was successful on this appeal. It seeks costs of $1,036.13, of which its legal fees are $770.97. The respondent calculated its legal fees as the time of its in-house counsel at his gross hourly wage rate of $50.39.
2The appellant Pascal Jasmin (the "appellant") makes four submissions.
3First, he says that the trial judge ruled that each party should bear its own costs. However, on an appeal, the Rules of Civil Procedure govern costs awards. The general rule is that costs should follow the event except in special circumstances.
4Second, he argues that the ruling would set an extreme precedent. He says that the extreme importance of the issue to the future of Canada necessitated his appeal as a matter of social responsibility. The appellant has not persuaded the Court of either the significance of the issue in this proceeding or the merits of his position.
5Third, he says that there was a basis for the appeal that is a relevant factor for mitigation of the costs award, even if it too late to raise the two issues he has in mind on the appeal itself. The first of these issues - $148.26 in transfer costs - is not a basis for reducing the costs award as it goes to the merits of the appellant’s case, which has been adjudicated. The second of these issues – Questrade’s alleged unjust enrichment – was also raised in the hearing, even if it was not quantified and expressed as unjust enrichment. As this allegation was not proven, there is no basis for a reduction of costs in this amount.
6Lastly, he says that there is great uncertainty in the legal and factual basis for the Court’s decision and, as such, there may have been a grave mistake that should not be aggravated by a costs award against him. He raises specific errors of law, of fact and of logic that he says exist in the Court's decision. This is not a basis for a reduction in costs. If the appellant feels that the Court's decision is in error, he has a right of appeal. If a party is successful on an appeal, any costs awarded against the party would be reversed. However, this Court must award costs on the basis of its decision.
7The respondent was successful on this appeal and is entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis. I would observe that the appellant should reasonably have expected that some costs would be awarded against him if he was unsuccessful on his appeal. In making this award, I have also considered, among other things, the seniority of counsel, the relative complexity of the matter including the number of issues raised by the appellant in what was essentially a straight-forward issue of contractual interpretation, the volume of the materials to which the respondent was required to respond, and the amount claimed in the proceeding. I have adjusted the legal fees for the time actually spent at the hearing of this matter and to reflect a partial indemnity scale.
8I find that fair and reasonable costs in this matter are $925, which are payable by the appellant to the respondent within 30 days.
Wilton-Siegel J.
Date: July 11, 2014