SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COMMERCIAL LIST

COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-9268-00CL
DATE: 2012-07-09

RE: PAUL ALEXANDER ROBSON,

Plaintiff

And

WILIAM MEYER, AYLESWORTH LLP, KENNETH TESSIS, SOBERMAN INC., MARVA MILLICENT BROOKS, PATRICIA FERN MARTIN AND CELLEX-C INTERNATIONAL INC.,

Defendants

BEFORE: Justice Newbould

COUNSEL: Sandra E. Dawe and Megan Marrie, for the Applicants

Paul Alexander Robson, self-represented, Respondent

ENDORSEMENT

[ 1 ] On June 5, 2012 I struck Mr. Robson's 2012 action without leave to amend and awarded the applicants costs of the 2012 action and of the 2008 action. I have now received cost submissions.

[ 2 ] The applicants seek costs in the 2012 action, including fees and disbursements and HST, of $23,831.05. They seek costs of the 2008 action, including fees and disbursements and HST, of $46,622.13. What is remarkable is that the actual rate charged by Ms. Dawe, called in 1989, was $270 per hour, which in my view is far less than what she would be entitled to claim on a partial indemnity basis. The same can be said for the rate actually charged by Ms. Marrie, called in 2007, of $175 per hour. These rates are claimed on a partial indemnity basis or, in the alternative, on a substantial indemnity basis.

[ 3 ] Mr. Robson objects to the amounts claimed. No particulars are provided other than his assertion that they are "outrageously excessive", "unnecessarily duplicative as to manpower hours" and "unnecessarily duplicative as to hours performed under the 2008 action and under the 2012 action". These objections without more are meaningless.

[ 4 ] Mr. Robson also takes the position that Justice Wilton-Siegel has reserved his decision regarding the plaintiff's claim for costs pursuant to Mr. Robson's withdrawal of his 2008 action and that there is no indication from him that he has "ceded his authority" in this matter to me. I do not accept that. No argument was made to Justice Wilton-Siegel regarding costs of the 2008 action after Mr. Robson withdrew it at the last moment. The motion material by the applicants before me contained a request for an order that they be awarded costs of the 2008 action, and I made that order. It would make absolutely no sense to require Wilton-Siegel J. to make the cost order in the 2008 action. He was not seized of the action but dealt only with it at a 9:30 a.m. appointment.

[ 5 ] The fact that the rates charged to the applicants are low is no reason to reduce what would otherwise be a reasonable partial indemnity rate. See my comments in Royal Laser Corp. v. Cassels, Brock & Blackwell, 2012 ONSC 2408 at para. 10. I would allow the full amount of the rates claimed on a partial indemnity basis. I would also, in the alternative, allow them on a substantial indemnity basis. The allegations made by Mr. Robson in both of the 2008 and 2012 action were replete with allegations of fraud, conspiracy and the like, and are clearly allegations of the type that can give rise to costs on a substantial indemnity basis. Further, the actions of Mr. Robson were an abuse of the process of the court and require a substantial cost order.

[ 6 ] In this case the work involved required a consideration of events that took place dating back to 1992 and which involved multiple decisions of the Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal and numerous affidavits and other evidence filed by Mr. Robson to support his claim that he only recently became aware of the extent of the alleged misconduct perpetrated on him by the defendants. It was no small matter to be dealt with. It is evident that the actions of Mr. Robson repeatedly delayed the hearing of the motions to strike the actions with over 13 chambers appointments necessary to address issues by Mr. Robson. Mr. Robson has no one to blame but himself for the amount of work required to have been carried out on behalf of the applicants.

[ 7 ] Taking into account all the circumstances, including the factors referred to in rule 57.01(1), including what a reasonable litigant in the position to Mr. Robson could expect to pay, I fix the costs payable by him to the applicants for the 2008 action at $46,000, inclusive of fees and disbursements and HST, and for the 2012 action at $23,500, inclusive of fees and disbursements and HST.

Newbould J.

DATE: July 9, 2012