Citation: Rowe v. College of Nurses of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 5170
COURT FILE NO.: DC-22-2755
DATE: 2023/09/14
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Craig Rowe, Applicant
AND
College of Nurses of Ontario, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice R. Ryan Bell
COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant
Megan Shortreed and Douglas Montgomery, for the Respondent
HEARD: In writing
Costs ENDORSEMENT
[1] Mr. Rowe moved for an extension of time to commence an application for judicial review of a decision of the College of Nurses of Ontario’s Inquiries Complaints and Reports Committee (“ICRC”). In the result, I rejected Mr. Rowe’s argument that his application was commenced in time. I also found that Mr. Rowe had not provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, that the application lacked merit, and that the College and the public interest would face prejudice as a result of the delay.[^1] The College was the successful party on all issues.
[2] The College seeks its partial indemnity costs in the amount of $20,456.29, all inclusive. The College provided its costs outline, together with written submissions. Mr. Rowe did not provide any responding costs submissions.
[3] I find that the rates charged by counsel for the College are reasonable for their year of call. The partial indemnity rates are set at 60 per cent of actual rates, which is within the normal range for partial indemnity costs.[^2]
[4] I also find the total hours spent by counsel for the College in relation to the motion – 74.1 hours – is reasonable, having regard to the procedural history and complexity of the motion. The College repeatedly advised Mr. Rowe that his application for judicial review had been brought out of time and proposed that the parties seek a case conference. Mr. Rowe ignored the College’s requests and proceeded to serve his application materials. The College was required to request an urgent case conference from this court.
[5] Mr. Rowe’s application was both factually and legal complex, and resulted in a full-day contested motion. Mr. Rowe’s record was 200 pages, which included argument and submissions. The majority of arguments raised by Mr. Rowe on the motion for extension of time were new issues that were not raised in the proceedings before the ICRC or in his notice of application for judicial review. The College was required to adduce evidence to respond to these new issues. It is apparent from the costs outline that, where appropriate, work was delegated to ensure that costs would be kept to a minimum. I also note that fees are only claimed for one counsel’s attendance at the motion for extension of time.
[6] An award of costs should be within the range of what the unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay. Given the amount of time Mr. Rowe forced counsel for the College to expend, he should have expected a sizeable costs claim.[^3] I find the amount of effort expended by counsel for the College to be proportionate to the level of complexity involved in this particular case. In my view, the costs claimed by the College on the motion are fair and reasonable and within the reasonable expectations of the parties.
[7] Accordingly, Mr. Rowe shall pay costs of the motion to the College in the fixed amount of $20,000, all inclusive.
Justice R. Ryan Bell
Date: September 14, 2023
CITATION: Rowe v. College of Nurses of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 5170
COURT FILE NO.: DC-22-2755
DATE: 2023/09/14
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
DIVISIONAL COURT
RE: Craig Rowe, Applicant
AND
College of Nurses of Ontario, Respondent
BEFORE: Justice R. Ryan Bell
COUNSEL: Self-represented Applicant
Megan Shortreed and Douglas Montgomery, for the Respondent
costs ENDORSEMENT
Ryan Bell J.
Released: September 14, 2023
[^1]: Rowe v. College of Nurses of Ontario, 2023 ONSC 3735. [^2]: James v. Chedli, 2020 ONSC 4199, at para. 14. [^3]: Direk v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2011 ONSC 7353, at para. 14.