ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

Court File No.: CV-11-164
Date: 2012/JULY/26

BETWEEN:

GREGORY GEORGE PAUL HUNT Plaintiff – and – SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Defendant

Self-represented Plaintiff
Helen Sava, for the Defendant

The honourable MR. JUSTICE J. M. JOHNSTON

RULING ON COSTS

[ 1 ] This is a Ruling on Costs following a successful Motion by the Defendant heard on January 13, 2012, in which the Plaintiff’s action was dismissed.

[ 2 ] I have received submissions on behalf of the Defendant; the Plaintiff has filed no submissions, although he was given extended time to do so.

[ 3 ] In accordance with Rule 57.01 and Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act , the Court has a wide discretion upon the awarding of costs.

[ 4 ] The Defendant submits that the very nature of the proceeding warrants an award of costs on a full indemnity basis.

[ 5 ] The Plaintiff commenced an action in 2011 to re-litigate an action against the Defendant, originally settled in 2002. The Plaintiff sought damages in that action of $494,000.00. The Defendant settled the 2011 action on the basis that the action would be dismissed without costs and, in so doing, gave up his right to claim costs. Almost immediately after he consented to dismissal of the claim, the Plaintiff commenced this action claiming essentially the same relief.

[ 6 ] The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff is seemingly unwilling to accept that his case against the Defendant is at an end. The Defendant has cause to expect the Plaintiff will continue in his effort to litigate against the Defendant. A substantial cost award is necessary, according to the Defendant, in part, as a deterrent to prevent further frivolous litigation.

[ 7 ] Pursuant to Rule 57 , the Court may consider the amount claimed and recovered in the proceeding, the complexity and importance of the issues, the conduct of any party that tended to unnecessarily lengthen proceedings, whether any step in the proceeding was improper, vexatious or unnecessary, and where a party commenced a separate proceeding for claims that should have been made in one proceeding. I also consider Ms. Sava’s full indemnity rate charged to Sun Life was $245.00 to $270.00 per hour at various points in the action. Counsel was called to the bar in 1999.

Ruling:

[ 8 ] The Defendant was successful in this Motion. The Plaintiff’s action was flawed from the outset and had no prospect of success. The Plaintiff’s conduct in this action is totally without merit. According to the Plaintiff, he has no funds and no ability to pay any costs awarded in any event.

[ 9 ] Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant is a somewhat sympathetic individual, the Defendant is entitled to equal entitlement under the law. The Defendant has been put to needless expense both in 2011 and in this action. While the Motion had some complexity in law, it was, in many respects, straight forward. The Defendant is entitled to costs. I consider the financial position of the Plaintiff, the outcome of the Motion, the conduct of the Plaintiff and also the fact that costs awarded should reflect what a losing party could reasonably expect to pay under the circumstances.

[ 10 ] Taking into account all of the above circumstances, I exercise discretion and award costs to the Defendant payable by the Plaintiff forthwith as set out in the Bill of Costs of the Defendant on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $10,418.21 total fees, H.S.T. on fees of $1,354.37, total disbursements of $2,363.50, for a total payable of $14,136.08.

The Honourable Mr. Justice J. M. Johnston

Released: July 26, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-164

DATE: 2012/JULY/26

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: GREGORY GEORGE PAUL HUNT Plaintiff – and – SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA Defendant RULING ON COSTS The Honourable Mr. Justice J. M. Johnston

Released: July 26, 2012