Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-473944

DATE: 20131024

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Stefan Gheorghe Petre, Plaintiff

– AND –

Toronto Police Services Board, Defendants

BEFORE: E.M. Morgan J.

COUNSEL:
Stefan Gheorghe Petre, in person

Brennagh Smith, for the Defendant

HEARD: September 16, 2013, with further written submissions on costs

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] At the conclusion of my judgment rendered September 27, 2013 I invited written submissions on costs and requested that the submissions be made within two weeks of that date. I have received submissions from Ms. Smith on behalf of the Defendant, but have not received any real costs submission from the Plaintiff, who represented himself at trial.

[2] The Plaintiff’s one written response to the request for submissions on costs took the form of a short email indicating that he continues to put the blame for his difficulties on everyone but himself. He has not, however, provided any more focused response to the Defendant’s request for costs.

[3] Ms. Smith indicates in her submissions that the Defendant made an offer to settle on April 12, 2013, the terms of which entailed dismissing the action without costs. Since the Plaintiff took the action to trial and lost on all issues, the Defendants deserve their costs. The terms of the Defendant’s offer, therefore, are better than the Plaintiff did at trial, which should trigger a right to costs on a substantial indemnity basis under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[4] That said, it is clear that the Plaintiff is not a person of great financial means. The fact that he was not able to afford counsel to properly advise him, combined with his misperceptions of his own conduct, led him to bring this ill-conceived action and to take it all the way to trial. Had he had legal advice he would doubtless have been told that his claim was futile and that he should accept the Defendant’s offer.

[5] Ms. Smith has indicated in her costs submissions that the case was defended on a “lean” basis, and that the Defendants were careful not to run up the legal costs any more than was necessary. Her Bill of Costs puts the actual costs incurred at a total of just over $53,000; in her submissions, she requests an all-inclusive award of $45,000.

[6] I appreciate that Ms. Smith and her clients strived to keep the costs of this case low, and, indeed, I consider her request to be on the comparatively low side of what counsel typically request at the end of even a short, one-day trial. Nevertheless, given the situation in which the Plaintiff finds himself I am moved to reduce the award somewhat. The Plaintiff needs to recover from trial, and a cost award that is too steep might impede that recovery.

[7] The Plaintiff is ordered to pay costs to the Defendants in the amount of $20,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Morgan J.

Date: October 24, 2013