ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: C-840-12
DATE: 2014-05-26

B E T W E E N:

Tamas Hajos and Eva Hajos

Appearing in Person

Plaintiffs

• and -

Tom David personally, Barrister and Solicitor,
(also known as Moshe Tomi Thomas David,
Barrister and Solicitor, and as Tom David,
Medical Malpractice Lawyer), David & David,
Barristers and Solicitors, (also known as
David & David, Barrister and Solicitor, as
David & David, Trial Lawyers, as David &
David, Personal Injury Lawyers, and as David
& David, Medical Malpractice Lawyers),
Suzette F. A. Bailey, Josephina Benic, Lori
Fanfoni, Maurice J. Neirinck, personally, Barrister
& Solicitor, Maurice J. Neirinck & Associates,
Barristers and Solicitors, Toronto Assessment
Office, Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Ms. Mary Jane Bujold, Jane Doe and John Doe

Natasha Wilson, Counsel for the Defendants,
Toronto Assessment Office, Ontario Superior
Court of Justice and Ms. Mary Jane Bujold
(Ministry of Attorney General
Crown Law Office – Civil)

Defendants

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.J. FLYNN

COSTS RULING

[1] In my Reasons for Judgment dated February 10, 2014, I indicated that the Crown Defendants, having been completely successful in having the Plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim struck and the action dismissed against them ought to be entitled to costs, if sought. Those Defendants have now sought their costs in the total amount of $2,700 for this half day motion. I am reminded that by s.131(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, costs awarded to her Majesty are not to be disallowed or reduced merely because they relate to a Crown salaried lawyer.

[2] Ms. Wilson is indeed a Crown lawyer.

[3] My task is to fix costs that are fair and reasonable and within the reasonable expectations of the losing side.

[4] There has been no complaint about the amount of time spent by Crown counsel on this motion, namely 27 hours. Nor should there be in light of the voluminous material filed (mostly by the Plaintiffs) in this matter.

[5] And there should be no complaint about the hourly rate charged by winning counsel.

[6] By any standard, both the time and the rate appear perfectly reasonable.

[7] In the normal course I would simply fix costs in the full amount claimed by the Crown.

[8] But the written submissions of the Plaintiffs certainly cause pause for thought and, in my view, take this case some distance from the normal course.

[9] They submitted 39 pages, mostly consisting of six letters from them to Crown counsel.

[10] Their Reply to the Crown’s Costs Submissions are contained in five pages of thoughtful, articulate and organized rejoinder.

[11] The entire thrust of their argument is contained in the following closing excerpt:

In our experience, the Crown has repeatedly acted in an arrogant, cavalier and high-handed manner. Now, after being so thoroughly insulted by the Crown in that clearly the Crown feels that I do not even warrant a response, I revert to my original position, the position that people should not be penalized for seeking truth, transparency, and accountability from government agencies, and my belief that thus no costs should be ordered under the circumstances of this case.

[12] Their submissions satisfied me that virtually none of their correspondence to the Crown was answered – they were ignored by the Crown at every step. I recognize that it is difficult, awkward and can often be dangerous for counsel opposite to engage with self-represented parties outside of the Courtroom.

[13] But surely if the State has any obligation to its citizens, it is to treat them with respect and courtesy. I don’t here say that Crown counsel were uncivil to the Plaintiffs, but in choosing to act the way Crown counsel did, they were extremely discourteous.

[14] Surely, each of the Plaintiffs’ letters deserved some kind of response.

[15] Had the Plaintiffs been represented and had their lawyer received such treatment, it would surprise no one that such conduct on the part of Crown counsel be the subject of a complaint to the Law Society.

[16] The Plaintiffs’ material was huge and unwieldy. They had some legitimate questions and concerns. But they are citizens, they are persons.

[17] They deserved better. Moreover, they twice made real Offers to Settle the costs issue – once for $1,500 and finally for $2,000. Both were rejected by a stunning silence. Crown counsel’s conduct is not acceptable.

[18] Accordingly, I accept the Plaintiffs’ final submission in this matter and award no costs to the Crown Defendants.

P.J. Flynn J.

Released: May 26, 2014