Court File and Parties

CITATION: Bayfield v. College of Physiotherapists of Ontario, 2015 ONSC 7952

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 415/13

DATE: 20151221

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: ZAK ALASTAIR BAYFIELD, Appellant (Respondent)

AND:

COLLEGE OF PHYSIOTHERAPISTS OF ONTARIO, Respondent (Moving party)

BEFORE: Kruzick, Sachs & Wilton-Siegel JJ.

COUNSEL: Zak Alastair Bayfield, acting in person

Susan Chapman and Karen Ensslen, for the Respondent

HEARD at Toronto: September 23, 2015

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] The disposition with respect to costs in this matter was reserved. Mr. Bayfield, who was self-represented at the hearing before this court, seeks costs in the amount of $9,000 (inclusive of disbursements). In support of this request Mr. Bayfield attached a copy of the bill he received from counsel who apparently assisted him in preparing for the appeal. This assistance included preparing the Notice of Appeal and preparing the appeal book, brief of authorities and factum that Mr. Bayfield filed. The disbursements associated with the appeal, including disbursements were approximately $1,000.00.

[2] The respondent takes the position that costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis and submits that, given its success on a motion to admit fresh evidence, costs should be fixed in the amount of $2,728 all inclusive.

[3] In the exercise of our discretion and bearing in mind the factors and principles of indemnity as set out in rule 57.01(1) Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, costs shall be to the appellant payable by the respondent and fixed in the amount of $3,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST. This amount will compensate Mr. Bayfield for the disbursements incurred and reflects appropriate partial indemnity compensation for the assistance he received from counsel in the steps leading up to the hearing of the appeal, which compensation should be offset by the costs incurred by the Respondent on its successful motion to admit fresh evidence. Further, the award reflects the fact that the Court did not accept Mr. Bayfield’s argument that he should have been granted an indefinite adjournment to instruct counsel and held only that a brief adjournment to review the newly presented materials was warranted.

___________________________ E. Kruzick J.

Sachs J.

Wilton-Siegel J.

Date: December 21, 2015