Court File and Parties

CITATION: Reid v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2015 ONSC 7702

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-15-44-00JR

DATE: 20151210

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO – DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: ASTON REID, Applicant

AND:

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD, Respondent

BEFORE: MOLLOY, HAMBLY and HACKLAND JJ.

COUNSEL: Shalom Wise, for the Applicant

Brian Blumenthal, for the Respondent

HEARD: In writing

Endorsement as to Costs

MOLLOY J.:

[1] For Reasons dated October 23, 2015, this Court found in favour of the appellant in respect of his appeal from an order of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (“the Board”).[^1] At that time, we ordered that if the parties could not agree on costs, written submissions could be forwarded to the Court.

[2] The parties were not able to agree. Written submissions were made.

[3] The successful appellant seeks costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $12, 367.42 (representing approximately $10,000 for fees, plus taxes and disbursements).

[4] The respondent Board submits that there should be no order for costs against it, because of its role as an administrative tribunal or decision-maker. Alternatively, the Board argues that the costs claimed are excessive.

[5] The Board’s position is unlike the vast majority of administrative tribunals which follow the adversarial model and decide disputes between two or more parties. Applicants for compensation appear before the Board and the Board makes a decision. If the applicant seeks to appeal that decision, there is no other party apart from the Board. For that reason, the Board typically takes an active role before the Divisional Court, making full submissions on all issues, including the merits of the decision under review. The Board did that in this case. It took an adversarial role, which was not inappropriate in the circumstances, but which was nevertheless oppositional to the appellant. The cases cited as authority for not awarding costs against a tribunal are distinguishable on that basis.

[6] In the circumstances of this case, I am of the view that Mr. Reid should recover his costs of this appeal. His financial resources are limited and it was reasonable for him to have required counsel to argue this appeal.

[7] However, the quantum of costs should be commensurate with the nature of the proceeding. The materials filed were not extensive and the factum was brief. In my view, the number of people working on the file, the rates charged for the work done, and the amount of time spent are all excessive. I would therefore fix costs in the amount of $5000, all inclusive, which I consider to be an appropriate reflection of the nature of the proceeding and the reasonable expectation the respondent would likely have had in respect of the partial indemnity costs.

MOLLOY J.

HAMBLY J.

HACKLAND J.

Date: December 10, 2015

[^1]: Reid v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, 2015 ONSC 6578