Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-09-386582
DATE: 20140326
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: URAL DIREK, Ertug Direkoglu, KEMAL DIREKOGLU, and ELIF DIREKOGLU, Applicants/Respondents

AND:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO and the Toronto police services board, Respondents/Moving Parties

BEFORE: Stinson J.

COUNSEL:
Ural Direk and Kemal Direkoglu, acting in person

Josh Hunter, for the respondent/moving party Attorney General of Ontario

Ansuya Pachai, for the respondent/moving party the Toronto Police Services Board

HEARD: By written submissions

ENDORSEMENT AS TO COSTS

[1] In my endorsement released September 20, 2013, I granted the moving parties’ Rule 21 motions and permanently stayed the Direks’ counter application. This endorsement is based on the parties’ subsequent written submissions as to costs.

Liability for costs

[2] The moving parties, AGO and TPSB, were completely successful in obtaining the relief they sought. I concluded that the Direks’ counter application was founded on allegations that could not conceivably succeed, and that to permit the Direks to pursue their requested hearing would be an abuse of process.

[3] In the circumstances, there is no valid reason to depart from the usual practice that the successful parties should recover an award of costs payable forthwith by the unsuccessful parties.

Scale of costs

[4] The moving parties seek full indemnity costs. Such an award is appropriate where unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty, illegality and conspiracy are advanced without merit. In this case, the Direks made such unsubstantiated allegations against a wide range of participants in the Canadian judicial system. The moving parties argue that full indemnity costs should be awarded to chastise and deter such inappropriate allegations. I agree.

Quantum

[5] AGO seeks fees totaling $11,000, based on approximately 48 hours of work, at an hourly rate of $225. My examination reveals that there is a double counting of four hours in respect of the case conference on July 13, 2011. This would reduce the amount claimed by $900.

[6] Apart from that reduction, the amount of time spent is proportionate and appropriate. The counter application sought damages of $4 billion. Serious allegations were made against many members of the justice system. The conduct of the Direks unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings, as they resisted the efforts of the moving parties to bring their motions before the court. By bringing their counter application, the Direks delayed the progress of the underlying forfeiture application brought by AGO for almost 4 years. Numerous overly-lengthy hearings have been held, in large measure due to the propensity of the Direks to repeat the same arguments at each hearing and to raise at length irrelevant matters.

[7] Overall, subject to the reduction of four hours mentioned previously, I consider the costs claim of AGO to be fully warranted. I therefore fix the costs of the AGO at $10,100.

[8] Turning to the costs claim of TPSB, it seeks full indemnity costs of $9,544.25. The hourly rate sought by its counsel is somewhat higher, due to her greater experience. Overall, she spent somewhat less time. For the same reasons as articulated above, I find that claim to be fully justified.

CONCLUSION AND DISPOSITION

[9] I therefore fix the costs of the Attorney General of Ontario at $10,100 and the costs of the Toronto Police Services Board at $9,544.25. Both sums are payable by Ural Direk and Kemal Direkoglou jointly and severally, forthwith. These sums are over and above any previous award of costs made against these parties previously in these proceedings.

Stinson J.

Date: March 26, 2014