ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 08-CV-347902
DATE: 20150828
BETWEEN:
KERSASP SHEKHDAR
Plaintiff
– and –
BEARD WINTER LLP and ROBERT HARASON
Defendants
Kersasp Shekhdar, self-represented
Rob Winterstein for the Defendants
HEARD: In writing
Perell, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
[1] By Reasons for Decision reported as Shekhdar v. Beard Winter LLP, 2015 ONSC 4661, I granted Mr. Shekhdar’s motion for: (1) an extension of time to appeal the case management Direction of Master Short; and (2) if the extension was granted, for an order setting aside paragraphs 13 to 17 of the Master’s Direction. Mr. Shekhdar was successful, and I invited the parties, if they could not agree about the costs, to make submissions in writing.
[2] Mr. Shekhdar, who is a self-represented litigant, asks to be awarded costs “considerably greater than $3,000” from the Defendants, Beard Winter LLP and Robert Harason and also from the Defendants’ Lawyers of Record, Gardiner Roberts LLP, Gavin J. Tighe, Rob Winterstein, and a law clerk of their firm, Neesa Craven.
[3] Mr. Shekhdar picks the sum “considerably greater than $3,000” because $3,000 in costs has been awarded against him on several previous interlocutory motions in the litigation between himself, self-represented, and the represented Defendants, who are Mr. Shekhdar’s former lawyers.
[4] As justification for a “considerably greater” sum than $3,000 Mr. Shekhdar relies on: (1) the costs consequences of Rule 49, the Offer to Settle Rule, and the fact that he delivered offers to settle the motion without costs; and (2) the allegedly improper, dishonourable, and vexatious, treatment he says that he has suffered at the hands of the Defendants and their lawyers.
[5] The passion of Mr. Shekhdar’s belief that he has been mistreated in pursuing his claim against his former lawyers is revealed in paragraph 51 of his written costs submissions, where Mr. Shekhdar compares himself to a bloodied and beaten pugilist punched out by the fearsome and merciless knuckleduster threesome of Gavin, Rob, and Neesa “in what court historians will come to call The Tragic History of Kersie Skekhdar at the Superior Court of Toronto.” He respectfully submits that the court ought to ensure that the impending injustice not occur.
[6] Most of Mr. Shekhdar’s costs submissions would count as a slander if they were not protected by the privilege associated with court proceedings.
[7] Ironically, the costs submissions of Mr. Shekhdar, whose behaviour on the motion before me did not reveal himself to be helpless or hapless, - he was successful on the motion and he comported himself properly – are themselves as improper, dishonourable, and vexatious, as the allegedly deplorable treatment he alleges he has suffered.
[8] All litigants - be they represented or self-represented litigants - are entitled to be treated civility and respectfully. Mr. Shekhdar’s costs submissions are uncivil and disrespectful.
[9] Even if I were to conclude that Mr. Shekhdar was treated improperly - and I make no such finding - two wrongs do not make a right, and Mr. Shekhdar was wrong in venting his anger and indignation as he has in his costs submissions.
[10] Therefore, while I have read all of Mr. Shekhdar’s submissions, I shall give no weight to the florid rhetoric and polemic, and I do not need to comment about the Defendants’ and their lawyers’ submissions in defence of their own honour and dignity.
[11] I, therefore, shall consider the matter of the costs of an interlocutory motion that I concluded was unfortunate in the making and in the resisting because the motion, whatever the outcome, was going to contribute nothing to the advancement of the litigation.
[12] The question then is whether Mr. Shekhdar, as a self-represented litigant, who has no legal fees to pay (and to be indemnified for), is entitled to costs.
[13] The immediate problem for Mr. Shekhdar is the established case law about costs for self-represented litigants, set out in Fong v. Chan (1999), 1999 2052 (ON CA), 46 O.R. (3d) 330 (C.A.) and Mustang Investigations v. Ironside, 2010 ONSC 3444 (Div. Ct.). Those cases stand for the principle that a self-represented litigant is not entitled to costs to indemnify him or her for legal expenses in the absence of evidence proving that the litigant has suffered a loss of income or an opportunity to earn income.
[14] In the immediate case, Mr. Shekhdar, who apparently is impecunious, has provided no evidence of any income loss.
[15] In these circumstances, as a self-represented litigant, Mr. Shekhdar is entitled only to be reimbursed for his recoverable disbursements, which are few because, as it happens, Mr. Shekhdar, because of his impecuniosity, is the beneficiary of a fee waiver from the Ministry of the Attorney General.
[16] Thus, his claim for disbursements largely concerns the delivery expense of filing documents with the court, which, alas, also has a sorry history, which I have read about in his costs submissions but do not propose to recount for the purposes of this costs decision.
[17] I conclude that apart from disbursements, for which I award the nominal sum of $300, there should be no order as to costs.
[18] Order accordingly.
Perell, J.
Released: August 28, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: 08-CV-347902
DATE: 20150828
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KERSASP SHEKHDAR
Plaintiff
– and –
BEARD WINTER LLP and ROBERT HARASON
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION – COSTS
PERELL J.
Released: August 28, 2015