SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: 12-55468
DATE: 20140307

RE: MELBA MANSON AND SCOTT MANSON

AND

CANETIC RESOURCES LTD., PENN WEST PETROLEUM LTD., also known as Penn West Energy Trust and also known as Penn West Exploration and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA also known as THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA

BEFORE: Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

COUNSEL: Melba Manson and Scott Manson, Self-represented

Todd J. Burke and Roberto D. Aburto, for the Defendants

HEARD: Written Submissions

costs ENDORSEMENT

[1] On January 13, 2014, the Defendants were completely successful in their motion challenging Ontario’s jurisdiction and asserting crown immunity in this matter. Coupled with the jurisdiction motion was a motion for contempt brought by the Defendants and a motion for contempt roughly by the Plaintiffs. The costs of those contempt motions have been dealt with separately.

[2] The Defendants argue that costs on a substantial indemnity scale are appropriate if there is reprehensible conduct in the proceedings “as a mark of the court’s disapproval of the parties conduct”.[^1] The Defendants submit that the Plaintiffs’ reprehensible conduct dates back to abusive phone calls in March 2013 and that their abusive conduct continued throughout the duration of this proceeding.

[3] The Defendants say that the matter was somewhat complex. While the law on jurisdiction is well settled, the law relating to crown immunity is more complex. The Defendants rely on their motion materials which were comprehensive, including a detailed history of the land and associated mineral rights in question dating back to the 1950s. Those materials also detailed the extensive litigation history.

[4] I was referred to the decision of Petrook v. Natuzzi, 2013 ONSC 5855 where a plaintiff was successful in defending a jurisdictional motion based on the test in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17. There, the Court ordered costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $19,711.07. The Defendants say this case was more complex due to the claim of crown immunity. As a result, the Defendants seek $23,896.92 in costs associated with the jurisdiction motion.

[5] The Defendants further argue that the Plaintiffs presented their claim in a disorganized manner. For example, the Plaintiffs served an Amended Statement of Claim on counsel for the Defendants, which was not marked as amended and which was never filed with the Court. Only through a review of the court file, did the Defendants discover that it had not been filed. The Plaintiff, Scott Manson, delivered abusive voicemail messages that expressed an interest in cross examining the Defendants’ affiant and this resulted in further consultations between counsel for the defendants and their clients, thereby increasing costs. Although a timeline was established for the Plaintiffs to provide written questions for the Defendants’ affiant, the Plaintiffs never provided those questions. The Defendants also point to the disorganization in the Statement of Claim. While the document was nine pages in length and featured many paragraphs, only three were numbered.

[6] In summary, the Defendants seek their costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the conduct of the Plaintiffs which required the Court’s intervention and the manner in which the Plaintiffs presented their position before the Court.

Conclusion

[7] As in the case of the contempt motion, the Defendants have not provided any submissions on the issue of costs and the time period for them to do so has long lapsed. This was a difficult motion which was made even more difficult by the Plaintiffs’ conduct and the disorganized material that they placed before the Court. The Plaintiffs made scandalous allegations against the parties, their counsel and the judges and the Courts of Alberta. The Court had to intervene because of Scott Manson’s abusive phone messages. This is an appropriate case to make an award of substantial indemnity costs. I have examined the hourly rates and the time spent on this matter and I conclude that these are reasonable. I accordingly award to the Defendants their costs in the amount claimed, namely $23,896.92.

Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

Date: March 7, 2014

COURT FILE NO.: 12-55468
DATE: 20140307

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

RE: MELBA MANSON AND SCOTT MANSON

AND

CANETIC RESOURCES LTD., PENN WEST PETROLEUM LTD., also known as Penn West Energy Trust and also known as Penn West Exploration and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA also known as THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA

BEFORE: Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

COUNSEL: Melba Manson and Scott Manson, Self-represented

Todd J. Burke and Roberto D. Aburto, for the Defendants

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

Released: March 7, 2014

[^1]: Beaver Lumber Co. v. 222044 Ontario Ltd., [1996] O. J. No 3294 at para 8