Court File and Parties
CITATION: Moghadam v. York University, 2014 ONSC 4479
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 472/13
DATE: 2014/08/29
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Mazdak Bandeh Moghadam, Applicant
AND
York University, Respondent
BEFORE: Hackland RSJ., Matlow and Kiteley JJ.
COUNSEL: Self-represented, Applicant
Carole J. Piovesan, Counsel for the Respondent
HEARD: By written submissions
ENDORSEMENT ON COSTS
[1] The Applicant’s Application for Judicial Review in this matter was dismissed by this Court on the basis that his various grievances against the Respondent University were in the nature of purely private issues or issues falling within the purview of other judicial or administrative bodies. The Court’s reasons are to be found at Moghadam v. York University, 2014 ONSC 2429.
[2] Notwithstanding the complete dismissal of his Application, the Applicant seeks costs against the successful Respondent in the sum of $25,376.84 which is said to represent 1680 hours of his time at a rate of $20.00 per hour. In support of this claim the Applicant seeks to re-argue his substantive complaints and launches a personal attack on the conduct of University counsel. These arguments are completely without merit.
[3] Having been entirely successful in defending this Application for Judicial Review, the Respondent University is entitled to its costs. The Respondent submits a claim for its partial indemnity costs in the sum of $20,815.00 plus disbursements of $1,642.38 and applicable HST. Nearly all of the claim for fees arises from the work of Ms. Carole Piovesan, a 2010 call to the bar, who spent approximately 100 hours on the matter and charged a partial indemnity rate of $175.00 per hour.
[4] By way of explanation as to why it was necessary to expend this number of hours to defend the Application, counsel points out:
(a) Some of the issues claimed against multiple persons at the University, requiring an analysis of each person’s involvement in the alleged events and his or her relationship to the University to determine whether a statutory power was being exercised.
(b) The Amended Notice of Application required the interpretation and analysis of several statutes including, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[^1], the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act[^2], the Criminal Code[^3], the Trespass to Property Act[^4], the Human Rights Code[^5] and its processes of adjudication, and the Canadian Human Rights Act[^6] and its processes of adjudication.
(c) The Respondent was required to file a total of five affidavits to respond to each of the Applicant’s issues including, (i) his status as a non-student during the summer of 2013, (ii) the deletion of his Social Insurance Number from the University’s electronic records and (iii) the disclosure of his University file.
[5] Respondent’s counsel further points out that the Applicant took unnecessary steps that were time consuming to address. For instance, he crossed-examined two York University employees on May 10, 2014 in connection with this Application. The cross-examinations were scheduled for a total of three hours but ultimately took an entire eight-hour day. None of the cross-examinations transcripts were filed by the Applicant for the hearing, nor was their evidence relied on in any manner by the Applicant.
[6] In addition, the Applicant scheduled a motion returnable March 3, 2014 which he adjourned to March 19, 2014 on consent. This motion was effectively abandoned after the Applicant failed to file any materials in advance of the March 19 motion date. The Applicant then attempted to bring his motion on an urgent basis at the April 14 hearing, without notice to counsel.
[7] We accept that a significant amount of time was required to defend this Application as a result of the Applicant’s multiple and unfocused allegations against university officials. We also recognize that the Respondent properly utilized the services of a junior counsel to take carriage of this matter and the hourly rates claimed are reasonable.
[8] However, we would reduce the amount awarded to reflect what we think the unsuccessful party should reasonably expect to pay and to approach a more conventional award for an Application of this type.
[9] We award the Respondent University costs in the sum of $15,000.00 and disbursements of $1,642.38 plus HST for a total amount of $18,805.89, payable by the Applicant within 30 days.
Hackland RSJ.
Matlow J.
Kiteley J.
Date: August , 2014
CITATION: Moghadam v. York University, 2014 ONSC 4479
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 472/13
DATE: 2014/08/29
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Mazdak Bandeh Moghadam, Applicant
AND
York University, Respondent
BEFORE: Hackland, Matlow and Kiteley JJ.
COUNSEL: Self-represented, Applicant
Carole J. Piovesan, Counsel for the Respondent
ENDORSEMENT on costs
Hackland RSJ.
Matlow J.
Kiteley J.
Released: August , 2014
[^1]: The Constitutional Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [^2]: R.S.O. 1990, C. F. 31. [^3]: R.S.O. 1985, c C-46. [^4]: R.S.O. 1990, C. T. 21. [^5]: R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 19. [^6]: R.S.C., 1985, c. H-6.