ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 10-24545
DATE: 2013-06-04
B E T W E E N:
AARON WILLIAM LACEY
Marc A. Munro, for the Plaintiff
Plaintiff
- and -
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, as represented by the MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Joel Levine, for the Defendant
Defendant
HEARD: March 21, 2013
COSTS JUDGMENT
WHITTEN, J.
[1] On March 21, 2013, a status hearing pursuant to Rule 48.14(8) was conducted. The defendant moved to have the matter struck for essentially reasons of delay.
[2] Rule 48.14(13) mandates that the plaintiff show cause why the action could not be dismissed for delay. One of the possible outcomes (a)(i) is for the presiding jurist to establish a timetable for the remaining steps to move the matter to a trial list. The overall philosophy is to get actions which have somehow stumbled back on track.
[3] In this particular matter, Crane J. had on January 9and 10, 2013 made an order providing for security for costs and production. The plaintiff sought to obtain leave to appeal that order. The plaintiff had been representing himself in an action which to say the least was bizarre. The plaintiff sought back wages and damages from the Crown for his work on behalf of the Crown as a deep cover agent. While representing himself, the plaintiff had served various notices to admit upon the defendant. The plaintiff in his leave to appeal the order of Crane, J. had made his prosecution of the claim personal in that he had accused counsel for the defendant as acting fraudulently. Fortunately for all, Mr. Munro was retained before the return of the status hearing.
[4] It was obvious at the Status Hearing that counsel for the defendant was still quite sensitized to the attacks made on his integrity. The new counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for the defendant had not yet achieved a working rhythm as of the status hearing. The former felt himself somewhat blindsided by the request for dismissal in what is normally a perfunctory exercise.
[5] That description of a status hearing is somewhat accurate. However, the phraseology of the rule clearly contemplates dismissal as a possibility. That possibility cannot be disregarded, it is still an occasion to request dismissal, especially so, in a case that some may superficially consider a nuisance or “far out”.
[6] In any event, the status hearing quickly became a tense exercise. Both counsel had their reasons for being “miffed”. The court tried to play the role of the honest broker; namely, to purge some of the more objectionable documentation i.e. the various requests to admit, the leave to appeal application with its suggestion of personal impropriety on the part of counsel for the defendant. With the cooperation of counsel a modest go forward schedule was agreed upon. The status hearing itself was adjourned. A format as to cost submissions was established. Those submissions have now been received. In retrospect, making an order for costs at the time of the status hearing would have been like pouring gasoline on a campfire. Emotions and feelings were quite raw.
[7] There is the sense that the request for costs by the plaintiff demonstrates a certain chutzpah, especially so in the unseemly attack on the personal ethics of counsel. In a way, an order of costs in favour of the plaintiff would be rewarding bad behaviour and ignoring the fact that a request for a dismissal is a possibility under the rule. The court is not so inclined. There shall be no order as to costs.
WHITTEN, J.
Released: June 4, 2013
COURT FILE NO.: 10-24545
DATE: 2013-06-04
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
AARON WILLIAM LACEY
Plaintiff
- and –
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, as represented by the MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Defendant
COSTS JUDGMENT
WHITTEN, J.
ACRW/mw
Released: June 4, 2013