ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
MANOUCHER BARADARAN
Plaintiff
- and -
TARION CORPORATION, ROGERS BOYD, ABBASSGHOLI NASSERI, MASTER CUSTOM HOMES INC.
Defendants
In person
Howard Shankman,
for the Defendants
READ: November 26, 2014
BEFORE: F.L. Myers J.
REASONS for decisions
[1] I was assigned to case manage this matter by the Regional Senior Justice’s delegate Himel J. A case conference was held on November 4, 2014. At that time, the court scheduled a motion in writing by which the defendants seek to stay or dismiss this action due to the non-payment of costs orders made against the plaintiff.
[2] The plaintiff owes $4,500 to the defendants, Nasseri and Master Custom Homes, and $4,800 to the former defendant, Roger Boyd, who was represented by his employer, Tarion. Tarion awaits a further order from the Supreme Court of Canada for approximately $1,000 in respect of the plaintiff’s most recent unsuccessful effort to appeal to that court.
[3] The costs orders in favour of the defendants Nasseri and Master Custom Homes were made by Master Glustein in relation to orders requiring the plaintiff to respond to undertakings and to answer questions refused on cross-examination. The orders in favour of Boyd are in relation to the successful motion before Goldstein J. to dismiss the action against Tarion’s employee and the plaintiff’s unsuccessful appeal of that order to the Court of Appeal.
[4] Mr. Baradaran argues that all of these orders were subsumed in the costs order made by McEwen J. in his order dated November 4, 2013. That order was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal. Therefore, Mr. Baradaran argues, his costs liability has been extinguished. However, I have reviewed the costs reasons delivered by McEwen J, reported at 2013 ONSC 6559. The costs awarded by His Honour were in respect of a motion that he heard. Those costs had nothing to do with the outstanding costs ordered by other judicial officers in different motions and appeals.
[5] Mr. Baradaran’s other arguments set out in his written submission are frivolous and vexatious.
He accuses counsel of proceeding ex parte in an undisclosed matter.
He raises an issue because one of his motion records went missing in the court file. He asks “…if the Court cannot be a safe spot for the files, then where else could be more safe spot than the Court to the citizens?” He is correct of course. But the Court’s lack of modernization is not an excuse for Mr. Baradaran to decline to pay costs as ordered to the defendants.
Mr. Baradaran then launches into an ad hominem attack on counsel opposite.
He does not want to pay the costs ordered by Goldstein J. because the Court in that matter paid no heed to Mr. Baradaran’s unsubstantiated allegation of bribery against Tarion and its employee.
Analysis
[6] Mr. Baradaran is unrepresented. As such, he is entitled to a certain amount of leeway and accommodations by the court and by lawyers opposite. See Bilich v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 ONSC 1445, at para. 97. Mr. Shankman appropriately consented to a late request made by Mr. Baradaran to extend the time for making his submissions on this motion for example.
[7] But the substance of the law applies to self-represented parties as to anyone else. Justice Goldstein’s order was made in October, 2012. Master Glustein’s orders were made in February, 2013. Those orders are binding and are to be complied with as orders of this court. Mr. Baradaran has offered no acceptable reason for non-payment. There is not even any evidence or argument in Mr. Baradaran’s submissions concerning impecuniosity. I note that impecuniosity is not a shield for unreasonable conduct of litigation in any event. Abbott v. Reuter-Stokes Canada Ltd. (1988), 32 CPC (2d) 161 (O.H.C.J.).
[8] Rule 57.03(2) and 60.12 allow the court to exercise discretion to stay or dismiss an action for non-payment of costs or other non-compliance with interlocutory orders. The order can be made despite the fact that it resolves the action on procedural grounds rather than on its substantive merits. Esposito v. Toronto (City), 2012 ONSC 1586. The law’s preference for actions to be decided on their merits is clear and well understood. In this action however, the merits are thin at best. The plaintiff sues for warranty coverage in respect of matters for which he refused to allow the defendants to make repairs due to his wholly unsubstantiated belief that they and everyone with whom they might associate in doing so are on the take. The plaintiff claims that he left needed repairs unmade for years although he says they created a situation of danger and that his child was ultimately injured in a slip and fall on an unrepaired walkway. He has not yet sued for that injury but, he says, that claim is still to come. Mr. Baradaran is utilizing the civil justice system to seek justice. He does so frequently. He intends to do so again. He asks “is there any justice in this country?” There is of course. Everyone is equal before the law. That includes people against whom Mr. Baradaran makes unsupportable, scurrilous allegations from behind the shield of privilege that allows a litigant to publish unsubstantiated allegations free from accountability by way of defamation.
[9] Ignoring court orders is unjust and unfair to opponents and generally cannot be condoned by the courts. Visic v. University of Windsor, 2013 ONSC 2063, [2013] O.J. 1743 (SCJ). Given the lack of justification proffered and his ongoing vexatious approach, I am of the view that it is fair, reasonable, and in the interests of justice for this action to be stayed pending payment of all of the outstanding costs awards referenced above with applicable interest plus the costs award in respect of this motion discussed below. If all of the costs and interest are not paid in full before February 1, 2015, the defendants may move in writing without notice to the plaintiff to dismiss the action with costs.
[10] Mr. Baradaran may take no further steps in this action while it is stayed other than an appeal from this order (which he has already said he will take on page 7 of his submissions). The schedule set out in the Case Conference Memo dated November 4, 2014 is stayed pending payment of all of the outstanding costs. If the costs are paid quickly, it may be possible to re-instate the schedule at a telephonic case conference. Mr. Shankman is to take the lead in scheduling such a case conference with my office if circumstances call for it.
[11] The defendants may submit a draft order directly to my office for signing to implement these reasons. I dispense with the need for Mr. Baradaran to approve the form or content of the draft order.
[12] Mr. Baradaran is to pay one set of costs to the defendants jointly and severally in the amount of $750.00 inclusive of disbursements and HST for this motion.
F. L. Myers J.
Date: November 26, 2014
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
MANOUCHER BARADARAN
Plaintiff
- and -
TARION CORPORATION, ROGERS BOYD, ABBASSGHOLI NASSERI, MASTER CUSTOM HOMES INC.
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION
F.L. MYERS J.
Released: November 26, 2014