Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Bongard v. Bullen, 2025 ONCA 580 Date: 2025-08-05 Docket: COA-24-CV-1239

Before: Copeland, Wilson and Rahman JJ.A.

Between:

Robert A. Bongard Plaintiff (Respondent/ Appellant by way of cross-appeal)

and

Keith Bullen Defendant (Appellant/ Respondent by way of cross-appeal)

Counsel: Arthur Hamilton, Derek Kim, and Oliver Fils, for the appellant/respondent by way of cross-appeal Robert A. Bongard, acting in person

Heard: June 25, 2025

On appeal from the order of Justice Grant R. Dow of the Superior Court of Justice, dated November 5, 2024, with reasons reported at 2024 ONSC 4623.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] On June 27, 2025, we released our reasons dismissing the appellant’s appeal and the respondent’s motion for leave to appeal costs: Bongard v. Bullen, 2025 ONCA 473. The parties subsequently delivered written costs submissions, which we have reviewed.

[2] The appellant submits that the court should order no costs of the appeal and the motion for leave to appeal costs. The appellant argues that success was divided. Further, the respondent’s cross-motion for leave to appeal the costs order required an additional motion because the respondent filed the cross-motion late, requiring a motion to extend time to file (which the appellant consented to). The appellant further argues that the respondent has not sufficiently shown remuneration foregone in order to respond to the appeal for costs to be awarded in his favour as a self-represented litigant.

[3] The respondent seeks approximately $40,000 in costs of the appeal. We note that this amount includes costs related to his motion to extend time to seek leave to appeal the motion judge’s costs order, the main appeal, and the motion for leave to appeal the motion judge’s costs order. The respondent, who is a self-employed contractor, submits that he lost the opportunity for remuneration from a bathroom and kitchen renovation as a result of time spent preparing for the appeal.

[4] In view of the divided success, we make no order for costs of the appeal. Although the respondent’s cross-motion for leave to appeal costs could be said to be a smaller part of the appeal, additional time was incurred because the respondent filed the cross-motion seeking leave to appeal costs late, requiring a motion to extend time. In light of this conclusion, it is not necessary to consider whether the respondent has sufficiently established that he lost remuneration as a result of time spent on the appeal.

“J. Copeland J.A.” “D.A. Wilson J.A.” “M. Rahman J.A.”