ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: 028/11
DATE: 20121115

B E T W E E N:

GEORGE JACK HILL

Lisa Belcourt, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

FREDERICK ROWLAND HUGH HILL personally and as Estate Trustee with a Will of the ESTATE OF MABEL JANE JOHANNA HILL, deceased, THE ESTATE OF GEORGE JOSEPH HILL, deceased, and THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN AND TRUSTEE

In person

Respondent

HEARD: September 20, 2012

D E C I S I O N O N COSTS

WILCOX, J.

[ 1 ] In the decision in this matter, I invited the parties to file their respective submissions regarding costs, which they did.

[ 2 ] The Courts of Justice Act leaves the determination of the extent of costs to be paid and by whom to the discretion of the court. Generally speaking, costs are awarded to the successful party, to be paid by the unsuccessful party. Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the general principles to be considered in the awarding of costs.

[ 3 ] In this case, the court notes in particular that:

• the Applicant was represented by counsel, having 13 years experience in civil trials and hearing work;

• the Applicant’s counsel submitted a bill of costs totalling $32,084.52 inclusive of fees, HST and disbursements;

• although self-represented, the Respondent, Frederick Rowland Hugh Hill was aware from a previous costs order in an interim step in this matter that costs could be awarded. In any event, self-represented parties are taken to know the rules;

• the Applicant was the successful party, and, indeed, did better financially than he was prepared to settle for in that the delay caused by the Respondent reduced the amount of the final payment owed by the Applicant under the contract in question, according to that contract’s terms;

• the preceding was very important to the Applicant because of the money and labour that he had invested in the Hill farm under the terms of the contract which the Respondent refused to honour;

• this matter has been ongoing for about two years. The Respondent contributed to delay in the proceedings by requesting adjournments, sometimes on short notice;

• the Respondent’s materials were voluminous, but often improperly presented, making it difficult for the Applicant’s counsel to know how to respond;

• the Respondent made statements that were vexatious, accusing the Applicant of misconduct, such as mistreatment of their mother and fraud, without supporting evidence;

• the Respondent maintained that the Applicant’s receipts were fraudulent, even in the face of forensic evidence to the contrary;

• the Respondent has incurred unnecessary expenses on behalf of the estate and exposed the estate to a significant costs award.

[ 4 ] All of these points support an award of costs against the Respondent and in favour of the Applicant. However, the Respondent appears to lack the means to pay a significant costs award. The ability of the estate to pay such an award is unknown to the court.

[ 5 ] Taking all of the above into account, the court orders that the Respondent, Frederick Rowland Hugh Hill personally and the estate of Mabel Jane Johanna Hill shall be jointly and severally responsible for paying to the Applicant costs in the amount of $16,000 forthwith.

Justice J. A. S. Wilcox

Released: November 15, 2012