Asagwara v. Money Mart, 2015 ONSC 1065

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-00422511

DATE: 20150218

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: Martins Uchenna Asagwara, Plaintiff

AND:

Money Mart, National Money Mart Company and Dollar Financial Group Inc., Defendants

BEFORE: Justice W. Matheson

COUNSEL: Plaintiff self-represented

Marvin J. Huberman, for the Defendants

HEARD: In writing.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] This endorsement addresses the costs of the trial of this action. By judgment dated December 3, 2014, the action was dismissed. The plaintiff had sued for slander, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of mental distress. These claims related to the plaintiff’s arrest at a Money Mart store in 2006, on charges that were ultimately stayed.

[2] As the successful parties, the defendants seek costs on a partial indemnity basis in the total amount of about $40,000. The defendants ask that there be no order as to costs bearing certain factors in mind.

[3] In the exercise of my discretion, I have taken into account the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Without limiting that consideration, I find the following observations of particular significance:

(a) although the amount claimed was very substantial, the defendants could not have reasonably expected a damages award in that ballpark in any event;

(b) the trial was relatively short, and the self-represented plaintiff was constructive and did not cause any significant inefficiencies in the course of the trial; and,

(c) the defendants’ witness list expanded beyond the witnesses identified at the pre-trial, affecting the plaintiff’s reasonable expectations for the costs of the trial.

[4] Overall, as the successful parties the defendants should have a costs award in their favour. However, I conclude that it should be reduced from the total amount claimed bearing in mind the submissions of the plaintiff and the need for the award to be reasonable overall.

[5] Although I have concluded that a lower amount is reasonable in all the circumstances of this case, I note that the defendants’ counsel was, in the conduct of the trial, the model for counsel at trial against a self-represented party. I commend counsel for his professionalism.

[6] The plaintiff has requested an extended period of time to pay given his particular circumstances, which I grant.

[7] The defendants shall have a costs order of $20,000, all inclusive, and the plaintiff shall have up to twelve months within which to pay.

Justice W. Matheson

Released: February 18, 2015