Bouragba v. Conseil Scolaire de district de l’est de l’Ontario, 2021 ONSC 1749

Case Summary

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal, the respondents sought costs. The appellants, who were self-represented, argued that costs should be awarded against the respondents for refusing to settle, or alternatively, postponed until the end of the action. The court rejected the appellants' arguments and awarded costs to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the appellants' conduct, while unreasonable at times, did not warrant elevated costs. The court also reduced the costs claimed by one counsel representing multiple defendants to account for economies of scale. Costs were ordered payable within 90 days.

CITATION: Bouragba v. Conseil Scolaire de district de l’est de l’Ontario, 2021 ONSC 1749

COURT FILE NO.: 16-69785

DATE: 2021-03-09

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: Tarik Bouragba et. al., Appellants

AND

Conseil Scolaire de district de l’est de l’Ontario et. al., Respondents

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Marc Smith

COUNSEL: Tarik Bouragba and Ahmed Bouragba, Self-represented Appellants

Paul Marshall and Sophie Gagnier, Counsel for the Defendants, Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l’Est ontarien, conseil des écoles publiques de l’Est de l’Ontario and Ottawa Catholic School Board (“Conseil Scolaire”)

Jeff Saikaley and Andréa Baldy, Counsel for the Defendant, Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (“School Board”)

Jeffrey Claydon, Counsel for the Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario (“HMQ”)

Charlotte Anne Malischewski, Counsel for the Defendants, Ontario College of Teachers, Richard Lewko and Paul Marshall (“College”)

HEARD: In writing

REASONS FOR COSTS DECISION

M. Smith J

[1] On January 13, 2021, I released my decision regarding the Appeal by the Plaintiffs, Tarik Bouragba and Ahmed Bouragba (the “Appellants”). The Appeal was dismissed in its entirety (Bouragba v. Conseil Scolaire de district de l’est de l’Ontario, 2021 ONSC 287).

[2] I invited the parties to resolve the costs of the Appeal. A resolution was not achieved and written submissions were provided by each of the parties.

[3] The Respondents seek the following costs:

a. Conseil Scolaire: $7,500.00 for each of the three Defendants, for a total of $22,500.00 (inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T);

b. School Board: $8,463.65 (inclusive of disbursements and H.S.T.);

c. HMQ: $5,566.00 (no disbursements being claimed); and

d. College: $6,337.50 (no disbursements being claimed).

[4] The Appellants seek an order of costs against the Respondents. Alternatively, the Appellants requests that the amount awarded be “reduced and reserved for the end of the action or deducted from any offer of settlement”.

ANALYSIS

[5] Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 provides that costs are at the discretion of the Court.

[6] In exercising this discretion, the Court may consider the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Rules”).

[7] The Court of Appeal has held that the overriding principles of fairness and reasonableness must be applied to

Bouragba v. Conseil Scolaire de district de l’est de l’Ontario, 2021 ONSC 1749

Case Summary

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO DIVISIONAL COURT

REASONS FOR COSTS DECISION

ANALYSIS

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues

Statutory Provisions 2

Legislation 2