ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-106-11
DATE: November 2, 2015
BETWEEN:
Gerald Guy Brummell
Plaintiff
– and –
Alexander Williams and
Jennifer Persaud
Defendants
In Person
Mr. M.J. Pretsell, for the Defendants
RULING ON COSTS
ABRAMS, J
[1] The Defendants moved successfully for an order for summary judgement dismissing the Plaintiff’s action.
[2] To recall, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants for $7,000,000 on the alleged grounds of “civil conspiracy”, “intentional infliction of emotional distress”, “trespass to land”, “invasion of privacy”, “surveillance”, “defamation”, “abuse of process”, “malicious prosecution alienation of affection”, “fraud”, “tortuous interference”, “negligence”, “battery”, “criminal assault”, “imminent harmful or offence contract”, “false imprisonment”, “intentional interference with prospective economic relations”, intentional misrepresentation” and “engagement in ultra-hazardous activity”.
[3] In concluding that summary judgement should issue, I summarized the Plaintiff’s conduct in this litigation thus:
The Plaintiff is a recreational litigant who appears to enjoy playing the part of a lawyer to the point of holding himself out as such for the purpose of committing criminal fraud. Having had the opportunity to assess the Plaintiff’s demeanour in court, both as a witness and as a self-represented litigant, I am of the view that his determination to bend the evidence and the law to his particular view is only limited by his imagination.
[4] At the conclusion of my decision on the motion for summary judgement, I invited the parties to file cost submissions. I received submissions from the Defendants, along with a Bill of Costs (marked as Exhibit “A”) and a Costs Outline (marked as Exhibit “B”). I received no cost submissions from the Plaintiff as to his position, or in response to the Defendants’ materials. Thus, the Defendants’ materials stand, unopposed.
[5] Suffice to say, this was particularly nasty litigation in which the Plaintiff attacked the Defendants personally, alleging in his statement of claim that they were, inter alia, liars. Moreover, although the matter did not proceed to trial, there was, in essence, a mini-hearing in which the Plaintiff cross-examined the Defendant, Alexander Williams, and Crown counsel, Jodi Whyte. Both during cross-examination and in submissions, the Plaintiff made scandalous and unfounded accusations against the Defendants, the Crown and police officers who were not even parties to this proceeding.
[6] Further, it is obvious that the Plaintiff had no intention of settling these proceedings by virtue of the offers to settle that he served and his failure to accept offers served on him by the Defendants. On October 17, 2011, the Plaintiff served an offer to settle for the sum of $2,500,000, which expired on October 31, 2011. On November 15, 2012, the Plaintiff served an offer to settle for the sum of $2,750,000, which initially expired on December 19, 2012, but was extended to December 31, 2012. On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff served an offer to settle for the sum of $2,000,000, which expired on December 2, 2013. On November 19, 2013, the Defendants served an offer to settle for a dismissal on a without cost basis, if accepted prior to November 28, 2013, but which was open until one minute after the commencement of trial. Thus, the Defendants’ offer to settle was open for acceptance at the commencement of the motion for summary judgement. Accordingly, the Defendants’ offer to settle attracts the cost consequences envisioned in Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as the Defendants were entirely successful, which I find as a fact.
[7] The amount claimed by the Plaintiff in this proceeding was $7,000,000. While arguably there was never any basis for a claim of that amount, the very nature of the claim was no doubt daunting from the Defendants’ perspective.
[8] The proceeding was complex from the standpoint that the Plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, raised a multiplicity of claims, some of which were grounded in the law, though factually unmerited, and some of which were perhaps best described as fanciful. Nonetheless, the Defendants, through counsel, were put to the time and expenses of defending every claim.
[9] These issues were extremely important to the Defendants. To recall, they, as practicing physicians in a relatively small community, were alleged to be liars and co-conspirators with the police and the Crown in a plot to destroy the Plaintiff’s reputation. They were attacked personally by the Plaintiff throughout these proceedings and subjected to scandalous and unmerited allegations.
[10] While the matter was dismissed at the summary judgment stage, the litigation was somewhat more protracted as a result of a “mini-hearing” in which the Plaintiff was given the opportunity to both call evidence and cross-examine on affidavit evidence.
[11] For the reasons set out in my decision on the motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff’s conduct was unreasonable throughout the proceedings. He is, to put it simply, a recreational litigant who uses the courts for his own mischievous purposes.
[12] In all of the circumstances, and in exercising the Court’s jurisdiction to determine costs, the Defendants are entitled to their substantial indemnity costs inclusive of disbursements and HST in the fixed sum of $52,497.42 payable by the Plaintiff, forthwith. Further, the sum of $2,500 paid by the Plaintiff to the Superior Court of Justice in Picton representing security for costs pursuant to the order of Johnston J, dated September 30, 2011, shall immediately be released to the Defendants. To that end, Order to go in accordance with the draft filed by the Defendants with no need of the Plaintiff approving same as to form and content.
The Honourable Mr. Justice B.W. Abrams
Released: November 2, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CV-106-11
DATE: November 2, 2015
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Gerald Guy Brummell
Plaintiff
– and –
Alexander Williams and Jennifer Persaud
Defendants
RULING ON COSTS
Abrams, J.
Released: November 2, 2015