Court File and Parties

CITATION: Dupe v. William Punnett Housing Co-Operative Inc., 2015 ONSC 4393

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 509/13

DATE: 20150709

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: MESHELL DUPE, Appellant (Responding Party)

AND:

WILLIAM PUNNETT HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE INC., Respondent (Moving Party)

BEFORE: MOLLOY J.

COUNSEL: Appellant appearing in person Stephen Walters, Counsel for the Respondent

HEARD: In writing, in Toronto

Endorsement

(Costs of Co-Op motion to dismiss)

[1] For reasons set out in my hand-written endorsement on April 23, 2015, I dismissed the motion brought by the respondent (“the Co-Op”) seeking an order dismissing the appellant’s appeal as moot, or alternative, for being frivolous and vexatious. I ruled that the appellant is entitled to her costs of that motion and invited written submissions on that issue.

[2] At the same time as the Co-Op’s motion to dismiss, I heard a motion by Ms Dupe to set aside the Registrar’s order dismissing her appeal for failure to perfect. I granted that motion, but with no order as to costs as it involved an indulgence to Ms Dupe and was not an expense that should be borne by the Co-Op.

[3] Ms Dupe has now filed material supporting her claim for $1635.00 in costs for the Co-Op’s mootness motion. The Co-Op served its motion materials in respect of that motion on April 16, 2015. Any expenses incurred prior to that date cannot have been in response to that motion, but rather relate to Ms Dupe’s own motion, or to the appeal itself, neither of which are covered by my Order of April 23, 2015.

[4] Ms Dupe claims babysitting expenses of $25.00 per day for three days: two in March and one on April 23, 2015 so that she could attend in court. The March dates are not in relation to the mootness motion. The April 23, 2015 attendance was in relation to both motions, the first in time being the motion brought by Ms Dupe herself. The respondent suggests that the babysitting expense be split in two, which I accept as fair and reasonable.

[5] The photocopying expense claimed and the expenses paid by Ms Dupe’s father do not appear to relate to the Co-Op’s mootness motion and are not allowed.

[6] Ms Dupe occasionally hired Sandra Noel to work for her so that she could prepare for court at the rate of $150.00 per day. This would typically be on a Saturday. There was only one Saturday between April 16 and April 23. Based on the invoice supplied, it would appear that there was also at least one Thursday included, which was the hearing date, April 23, 2015. I accept that it was necessary for Ms Dupe to clear off some time so that she could prepare for the Co-Op’s motion. With respect to the attendance on April 23, 2015, I will split that in half just as I did for the babysitting expense, for a total recovery of $225.00 under that heading.

[7] Thus, I find Ms Dupe is out of pocket in respect of the Co-Op’s motion in the total amount of $237.50. I am also awarding her something for her own time in preparing, bringing the total costs to $300.00. Those costs are payable by the Co-Op to Ms Dupe, but may be withheld pending the resolution of the appeal itself. Upon the conclusion of the appeal, the costs of the motion are payable in 15 days, but may be offset against any amount found by the Court disposing of the appeal to be payable by Ms Dupe to the Co-Op.

MOLLOY J.

Date: July 9, 2015