Citation: Singh v. Balogun, 2019 ONSC 609
COURT FILE NO.: Div. Ct. 559/18
DATE: 2019/01/24
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
SURINDER SINGH Landlord
– and –
BUKOLA BALOGUN and OLUWATOBA BALOGUN Tenant
Sim Chahal for the Landlord
Bukola Balogun, self-represented Leora Jackson, amicus
HEARD: In writing
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
[1] Surinder Singh leased residential premises to Bukola and Oluwatoba Balogun. Pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006,[^1] the Landlord and Tenant Board ordered the Baloguns’ tenancy terminated. The Baloguns appealed the Board’s Order to the Divisional Court. Mr. Singh brought a motion to have the appeal quashed. I granted the motion and quashed the appeal.[^2]
[2] Mr. Singh seeks costs on a substantial indemnity basis of $8,065.47 all inclusive of fees, disbursements and taxes.
[3] It is not disputed that Mr. Singh is entitled, at least, to reasonable partial indemnity costs, but he submits that he is entitled to a substantial indemnity because: (a) the appeal was meritless; (b) the Balogun’s knew or ought to have known that the appeal was meritless; (c) the appeal was a factual matter for which there is no right of appeal; (d) the appeal was a delaying tactic to avoid an inevitable eviction; and (e) the Baloguns did not diligently pursue the appeal.
[4] I quashed the Balogun’s appeal because it appeared to be a question of fact or mixed fact and law for which there is no right of appeal and because on its merits, the appeal was devoid of merit. I did not make any finding on Mr. Singh’s argument that the appeal should be dismissed because it was a stratagem to delay eviction and to avoid the payment of rent.
[5] The Baloguns, who are self-represented litigants whose only source of income is from the Ontario Disability Support Program, submit that the fair and reasonable award of costs should be $500. They submit that (with the assistance of amicus) they properly defended their rights as a tenant and that they should not be punished for seeking access to justice. They say that they were diligent in attending court and in preparing and advancing their arguments with the confines of the law.
[6] A punitive costs award is rare and extraordinary and in the circumstances of this case, I see no basis for making such an award. The Baloguns were entitled to their day in court, which they received in the context of a motion to quash. In my opinion, the appropriate award in the immediate case is $1,250, all inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.
[7] Order accordingly.
Perell, J.
Released: January 24, 2019
CITATION: Singh v. Balogun et al., 2019 ONSC 609
COURT FILE NO.: Div. Ct. 559/18
DATE: 2019/01/24
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
SURINDER SINGH Landlord
– and –
BUKOLA BALOGUN and OLUWATOBA BALOGUN Tenant
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
PERELL J.
Released: January 24, 2019
[^1]: S.O. 2006, c. 17. [^2]: Singh v. Balogun, 2018 ONSC 7506