CITATION: Xia v. Lakehead University, 2020 ONSC 6636
COURT FILE NO.: DC 09/20
(Thunder Bay) DATE: 20201029
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett J.
B E T W E E N:
YU XIA
Applicant
- and -
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY and ONTARIO HUMAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondents
Counsel:
Dr Xia, self-represented
Derek Zulianello, for the University
Jason Tam, for the HRTO
Read at Toronto: October 29, 2020
ENDORSEMENT IN WRITING, IN CHAMBERS
D.L. Corbett J.:
[1] The parties have been unable to settle the form and content of the order reflecting the panel’s decision in this case released October 9, 2020 (Xia v. Lakehead University, 2020 ONSC 6150). Dr Xia is self-represented and this may be why the order could not be settled without recourse to the court. For future reference, Dr Xia should understand that settling an order does not include substantive argument about the content of the order but only whether the draft order accurately reflects the decision of the court.
[2] In objecting to the form and content of the draft order, Dr Jia argues as follows:
(a) The costs charged by Lakehead were not reasonable;
(b) There should be a grace period for payment of costs; and
(c) The interest rate should be the post-judgment rate fixed by the Attorney General pursuant to Rule 127 of the Courts of Justice Act.
[3] Dr Xia also notes that an order for payment of money is stayed “upon delivery” of a notice of appeal. A notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, dated October 22, 2020, was attached to Dr Xia’s email.
[4] Dr Xia’s first objection is not a valid one. Costs were fixed by the panel at $5,000 inclusive. The quantum of costs has been decided. The order must reflect the decision made.
[5] It was in the discretion of the panel to defer the obligation to pay costs. The panel did not exercise its discretion to grant a deferral. The order should reflect that the costs obligation arises as of the date of the panel’s decision, as ordered. Further, the absence of a deferral does not more than establish the date of commencement of post-judgment interest. Given the quantum of costs ($5,000) and the annual interest rate (2%), the liability for interest accrues at the rate of $8.50 per month – the monetary value of a thirty-day deferral of the payment obligation. As a litigant – even a self-represented one – Dr Xia is expected to bring some judgment to bear on whether to bother raising objections that are so trivial.
[6] Prejudgment and post-judgment interest rates pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act are posted periodically on the web site of the Attorney General:
https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/courts/interestrates.php
As shown on the Attorney General’s web site, the post-judgment interest rate for orders made in the third quarter of 2020 is 2.0%, the rate specified in the draft order. As also shown on the web site, this rate is the lowest post-judgment interest rate that has been applied to judgments in the period 1985-2020. Dr Xia does not suggest that some other rate ought to apply, or that the rate set out on the draft order is incorrect.
[7] None of the objections to the draft order have merit. The draft order is approved as to form and content and shall be issued and entered by the Registrar in the form provided by Lakehead and approved by the HRTO.
[8] Appellate proceedings taken from this court do not affect the process for issuing and entering this court’s orders. Thus, Dr Xia’s proceedings in the Court of Appeal are not relevant to settling the terms of the formal order reflecting the Divisional Court’s decision. I do note, for Dr Xia’s information, however, that a notice of motion for leave to appeal does not have the effect of staying an order. If leave to appeal is granted and a Notice of Appeal delivered, then enforcement of the costs ordered by the panel will be stayed pending appeal.
[9] Settling the form and content of an order is usually done on appointment before the Registrar rather than by a judge. I have settled the order in this instance because of the COVID-19 pandemic which makes appointments before the Registrar more difficult to arrange.
[10] This endorsement is effective from the time it is sent to the parties by email; a signed copy of the endorsement shall be sent to the parties in due course. The Registrar is directed to issue and enter the order in accordance with this endorsement.
___________________________ D.L. Corbett J.
Date of Release: October 29, 2020
CITATION: Xia v. Lakehead University, 2020 ONSC 6636
COURT FILE NO.: DC 09/20
(Thunder Bay) DATE: 20201029
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
D.L. Corbett, and JJ.
BETWEEN:
YU XIA
Applicant
– and –
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF LAKEHEAD UNIVERSITY and ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION
D.L. Corbett J.
Date of Release: October 29, 2020