CITATION: Thibault v. Ontario, 2016 ONSC 1020
COURT FILE NO.: C12-0017 & C13-0016
DATE: 20160211
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: File No. C12-0017
Jason Michael Thibault, Plaintiff (responding party)
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ontario Provincial Police & the Ministry of Attorney General, Respondents (moving parties)
AND RE: File No. C13-0016
Jason Michael Thibault, Plaintiff (responding party)
-and-
Cyndy Ramage and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Ontario Provincial Police, Respondents (moving parties)
BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert G.S. Del Frate
COUNSEL:
Jason Michael Thibault, self-represented
Réjean Parisé, counsel for the defendant Cyndy Ramage, Plaintiff (responding party)
Darrell Kloeze and Judith Parker, counsel for the Defendants (moving parties)
HEARD: Written Submissions
ENDORSEMENT on Costs
[1] Following my judgment of October 31, 2014, the parties have provided written submissions on the issue of costs. All wish to be compensated by the other parties in varying amounts.
[2] The facts of the case are reviewed in detail in my reasons and I do not intend to outline them at this time. However, it is clear from my reasons that the plaintiff was totally unsuccessful in his actions. His request for costs therefore is denied.
[3] The defendants on the other hand were successful and are seeking costs pursuant to section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Queen seeks costs in the sum of $14,947.50. The defendant Ramage seeks costs in the sum of $5,721.20.
[4] These matters have been before the courts for a considerable period of time. The plaintiff has been unrelenting in his pursuit of the actions as evidenced by the numerous complaints made against the defendant Ramage and representatives of the Queen. His present submissions persist in the same fervour in attempting to prove that the justice system has failed him. These ongoing difficulties are all attributed to the conduct of the defendant Ramage and representatives of the Queen.
[5] The defendants submit that at all times they acted properly. Because of the plaintiff’s vengeful attitude in instituting all of these actions, they have incurred totally unnecessary expenses in defending the plaintiff’s proceedings. As such, they feel that some indemnity is necessary to send a message to the plaintiff that he cannot act so irresponsibly and not have to face any consequences.
[6] I agree with the defendants that the conduct of the plaintiff is a factor at assessing costs. I must also keep in mind that costs must be “fair and reasonable” and “proportionate”. See Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario 2004 14579 (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 2634. Further, I must consider the financial ability of the party that has to pay the costs. Although the plaintiff is a school teacher, these proceedings have been quite expensive and potentially financially devastating. However, he persisted on litigation that was doomed to fail. The plaintiff must appreciate that there have to be consequences for his behaviour.
[7] Under the circumstances, I award costs as follows:
To Her Majesty the Queen, the sum of $9,500 all inclusive; and
To the defendant Ramage, the sum of $3,500 all inclusive.
[8] Order to issue as per Reasons.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert G.S. Del Frate
Date: February 11, 2016