DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-520/19
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Warkentin, Sachs and Davies JJ.
BETWEEN:
Renzo Villa
Appellant
– and –
Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario
Respondent
Salvatore Guerriero, for the Appellant
Andrew Faith and Matthew Howe, for the Respondent
HEARD in writing
REASONS FOR DECISION ON COSTS
THE COURT
1Renzo Villa is a professional engineer licensed by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”). The Discipline Committee of PEO found Mr. Villa guilty of two counts of professional misconduct for providing professional engineering services to the public without a certificate of authorization and for providing professional services to the public while employed by PEO in violation of an agreement not to do so. The Discipline Committee suspended Mr. Villa’s licence to practise for four months and ordered Mr. Villa to pay $15,000 in costs.
2Mr. Villa appealed the Discipline Committee’s finding that he engaged in professional misconduct. In reasons released October 31, 2022, this Court dismissed Mr. Villa’s appeal; Villa v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 6104.
3PEO argues that substantial indemnity costs are warranted in this case because Mr. Villa made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and dishonesty. Nonetheless, PEO is only seeking $50,000 in partial indemnity costs. PEO argues that $50,000 in costs is warranted because Mr. Villa appealed almost every aspect of the Discipline Committee’s process and reasons, because Mr. Villa’s conduct caused PEO to incur significant unexpected costs and because the primary legal issue on the appeal (whether sole practitioners need a certificate of authorization to provide professional engineering services to the public) was of great importance to PEO and the profession.
4Mr. Villa agrees that the main issue on his appeal had significance beyond his case. He argues that because his appeal raised an issue of public importance, no costs should be ordered against him. In the alternative, he argues that the costs should not exceed $5,000.
5This is not an appropriate case to make a no costs order. While one ground raised by Mr. Villa had broader public importance, most of his grounds of appeal did not. In fact, much of Mr. Villa’s appeal focussed on re-litigating factual issues decided by the Discipline Committee and attacking the integrity of the discipline process and PEO employees. To address Mr. Villa’s many grounds of appeal PEO was required to review in detail the full record and “fresh evidence”. Mr. Villa also raised new issues after his factum was filed. For example, Mr. Villa filed a lengthy “compendium” a few days before the hearing that contained new legal arguments. Mr. Villa’s counsel, who was retained only a few days before the hearing, also raised a new ground of appeal at the hearing. We asked the parties to prepare written submissions on that issue after the oral hearing. Because Mr. Villa’s grounds of appeal were constantly evolving, PEO was repeatedly forced to respond to new issues on short notice. All these factors increased PEO’s costs and justify a costs award at the higher end of the usual range granted by the Divisional Court in matters like this.
6We find that it would fair, reasonable and proportionate to order Mr. Villa to pay PEO $35,000 in costs inclusive of HST and disbursements. Mr. Villa shall be given 60 days to pay.
Warkentin J.
Sachs J.
Davies J.
Released: April 26, 2023
CITATION: Villa v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 2425
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-520/19
DATE: 20230426
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Warkentin, Sachs and Davies JJ.
BETWEEN:
Renzo Villa
Appellant
– and –
Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario
Respondent
REASONS FOR decision on costs
Released: April 26, 2023