Court File and Parties

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO DATE: 20231204 DOCKET: C70248

Lauwers, Roberts and Miller JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Justice of the Peace Julie Lauzon Applicant (Appellant)

and

Justices of the Peace Review Council Respondent (Respondent)

Counsel: Lawrence Greenspon and Paul Daly, for the appellant Adam Goldenberg and Adam Dobkin, for the respondent Scott Rollwagen and Aoife Quinn, for the intervener The Association of Justices of the Peace of Ontario

Heard: September 27, 2022

On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Justice David Aston, Justice Katherine E. Swinton and Justice Freya Kristjanson), dated September 27, 2021, with reasons reported at 2021 ONSC 6174, dismissing an application for judicial review of decisions of the Justices of the Peace Review Council dated May 7, 2020, and November 27, 2020.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] On June 15, 2023, we released our decision allowing in part the appeal of Her Worship Julie Lauzon (“JP Lauzon”) (with reasons reported at 2023 ONCA 425). We dismissed her appeal from the merits decision of the Hearing Panel and allowed her appeal from the disposition decision. We set aside the Hearing Panel’s recommendation for her removal from office and imposed a reprimand and 30-day suspension without pay.

[2] With respect to the disposition of costs, we granted JP Lauzon her costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive amount of $25,000. The parties subsequently advised of the following agreement: JP Lauzon is entitled to her costs before the Divisional Court in the amount of $15,000 plus HST; and to her costs of the leave motion before this court in the all-inclusive amount of $4,000.

[3] The parties have not been able to agree on the disposition of the issue of the costs of the hearing before the Hearing Panel (“the costs recommendation”) and have delivered written submissions, which we have reviewed.

[4] JP Lauzon submits that the reasons for the reduction in her hearing costs have been effectively overruled by her success on the appeal and that she should be reimbursed for all her costs before the Hearing Panel.

[5] We are not persuaded by these submissions. JP Lauzon did not seek leave to appeal the Divisional Court’s decision that the Hearing Panel’s costs recommendation was reasonable. JP Lauzon’s appeal before this court was limited to the Hearing Panel’s merits and disposition decisions and did not request any relief with respect to the Hearing Panel’s costs recommendation. As a result, the Hearing Panel’s costs recommendation was not before this court. In any event, JP Lauzon has not pointed to any reversible error in the Hearing Panel’s costs recommendation. Nor has JP Lauzon’s partial success on her appeal before this court affected the reasonableness of the Hearing Panel’s costs recommendation.

[6] As a result, we see no basis to interfere with the Hearing Panel’s costs recommendation. We therefore make no order with respect to the costs of the hearing before Hearing Panel.

[7] Order to go accordingly.

“P. Lauwers J.A.”

“L.B. Roberts J.A.”

“B.W. Miller J.A.”