Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-479681

DATE: 2013-12-30

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: DANIEL SLADE MOORMAN, Plaintiff (Responding Party)

• and -

HSBC BANK CANADA, Defendant

BEFORE: MORAWETZ J.

COUNSEL: Daniel Moorman, Self-Represented Philip Polster, for the Defendant (Moving Party)

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] On November 19, 2013 I endorsed the record as follows:

For oral reasons given today, summary judgment motion granted. Plaintiff’s action dismissed. Costs to be addressed separately.

[2] This endorsement deals with the costs.

[3] HSBC Bank Canada (the “Bank”) achieved success on this motion.

[4] Counsel to the Bank submitted a costs outline. The claim for costs on a partial-indemnity basis is $7,564.93, plus an appearance fee. The amount claimed on a substantial-indemnity basis is $10,392.75, plus an appearance fee.

[5] The action raised allegations of theft and misconduct on the part of the Bank, which were entirely unsubstantiated.

[6] Counsel to the Bank submitted that the conduct of Mr. Moorman served to increase the Bank’s costs in this matter as a result of Mr. Moorman having sent a multitude of emails that made outlandish allegations as against the Bank. A number of the e-mails were contained in the supplementary affidavit of Mr. Izsak. I accept that additional time was incurred in having to consider and respond to this type of correspondence.

[7] Allegations of theft and misconduct are serious and potentially very damaging to those accused of these acts. There was no basis for such allegations and as a result, I conclude that costs on a substantial-indemnity basis are appropriate.

[8] I have considered the submissions filed by the parties and I have also taken into account the facts enumerated under Rule 57, including the time spent, the results achieved and the complexity of the matter. In addition, I have also taken into account the principles set forth by the Court of Appeal in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3rd) 291 (C.A.), specifically that the overall objective of fixing costs is to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for an unsuccessful party to pay in the particular circumstances, rather than an amount fixed by actual costs incurred by the successful litigant.

[9] Having considered the foregoing, I award $8,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements to the Bank on account of costs. This represents a reduction from the amount claimed on a substantial-indemnity basis of approximately 20%. This reduction reflects that my decision was based solely on the summary judgment aspect of the motion and not on the Rule 21 argument.

[10] The award is payable within 30 days.

MORAWETZ J.

Date: December 30, 2013