CITATION: Landry v. Picard Estate, 2016 ONSC 2697
L’ORIGNAL COURT FILE NO.: 203-2014
DATE: 2016/04/16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MARGUERITE LANDRY and LOUISE LANDRY, Litigation Guardian
Plaintiffs/Moving Party
– and –
ESTATE OF ALBAN PICARD, Ferme Mon Reve, a sole proprietorship of Alban Picard, deceased, Raymond Picard, in his capacity as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Alban Picard, Deceased, Raymond Picard, in his personal capacity
Defendants/Respondents
Self‑Represented
Marcia Green, for the Defendants/ Respondents
HEARD: By written submissions
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
labrosse j.
[1] The Applicants brought a motion for interim costs for legal fees payable from the Estate of Alban Picard (the “Estate”) to allow them to pursue their various claims against the Respondents. The Estate bought a Motion to Strike all or a portion the Applicants’ pleadings. The motions were heard on December 12, 2014 and I provided my Endorsement on January 21, 2015. As part of my Endorsement, I found that the Applicant Marguerite Landry had been substantially successful on her motion for interim costs and that she was entitled to the payment of a portion of her legal costs.
[2] As a result of a change of solicitor by the Estate, there was delay in receiving the Estate’s Costs Submissions. I have now received written costs submissions from Marguerite Landry and the Estate. This Costs Endorsement is only intended to deal with Marguerite Landry’s costs associated with the Motion for Interim Costs.
[3] Marguerite Landry has submitted a Costs Outline claiming total fees of $2,570.00 plus disbursements of $841.37. While the Costs Outline states that it is provided by the “Applicants”, it also states that it does not include time for Louise Landry’s meetings, calls and consulting fees.
[4] The Applicants’ Costs Outline makes a number of allegations which are not material to the issue of costs.
[5] The Estate of Alban Picard claims that it incurred costs of $30,689.67 on the Motion for Intereim Costs. It further claims Marguerite Landry is not entitled to any costs as she is retired. She did not take time off from work or lose potential billable time as a result of the time she spent on the motion for interim costs.
[6] The Estate further states that Louise Landry is not able to represent Marguerite Landry and as such, Louise Landry is not entitled any costs.
ANALYSIS
[7] In exercising my discretion to award costs in these proceedings, I have considered the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 and I make the following findings:
a) Neither party has advised me of any Offers to Settle which were made in the context of the Motion for Interim Costs;
b) The Applicant, Marguerite Landry was self‑represented on the Motion for Interim Costs. The motion was solely argued by Louise Landry.
c) Marguerite Landry has claimed a counsel fee for 58 hours of research, redact instructions, material preparation and hearing time. She also claims 10 hours of travelling time.
d) The Costs Outline states that Marguerite Landry is unable to represent herself however it also claims time that would be associated with a party who is representing herself. I can only conclude that the amounts claimed for time spent is not time that was spent by Marguerite Landry.
e) The amount claimed for travelling time at $20.00 per hour is not substantiated.
[8] I acknowledge that there is precedent for self‑represented parties to claim legal costs and that part of that rationale is to indemnify the self‑represented litigant for their effort to participate in the litigation process. However, the factors which have led to such costs awards are not present in this case. A self-represented litigant can receive costs only if (1) the litigant demonstrates that he or she devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer; and (2) that as a result he or she incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity (See Mustang Investigations v. Ironside (2010), 2010 ONSC 3444, 103 O.R. (3d) 633, at para. 23 (Div. Ct.); and Fong v. Chan (1999), 1999 2052 (ON CA), 46 O.R. (3d) 330 at paras. 25-26 (C.A.)). These requirements are not made out on the facts.
[9] While I appreciate that the litigation process has required Marguerite Landry to spend time and effort, her entitlement in considering the principle of indemnity is limited to her out of pocket expenses as set out in Appendix “1” of her Costs Outline. I am prepared to allow a reasonable amount for disbursements. Many of the amounts claimed failed to include invoices or sufficient information to allow me to deem them to be proper disbursements. Further, the list of disbursements set out in Appendix “1” does not properly set out what amounts are subject to HST.
[10] In considering the limited role of Marguerite Landry in the Motion for Interim Costs and the amounts claimed in Appendix “1” of the Costs Outline, I will fix her entitlement to indemnification in the amount of $500.00 (inclusive of disbursements and any applicable HST), which amount shall be payable in 30 days.
Mr. Justice Marc R. Labrosse
Released: April 22 2016
CITATION: Landry v. Picard Estate, 2016 ONSC 2697
L’ORIGNAL COURT FILE NO.: 203-2014
DATE: 2016/04/16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MARGUERITE LANDRY and LOUISE LANDRY, Litigation Guardian
Plaintiffs/Moving Party
– and –
ESTATE OF ALBAN PICARD, Ferme Mon Reve, a sole proprietorship of Alban Picard, deceased, Raymond Picard, in his capacity as Estate Trustee of the Estate of Alban Picard, Deceased, Raymond Picard, in his personal capacity
Defendants/Respondents
costs endorsement
Labrosse J.
Released: April 22 2016