Rahsepar v Mladenovic, 2016 ONSC 4611

Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 14-61645 Date: 2016/07/14 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Simintaj Rahsepar, Plaintiff – and – Aleks Mladenovic, Defendant

Counsel: Self-represented, for the Plaintiff John P. Lundrigan, for the Defendant

Heard: Written submissions March 3 and April 11, 2016

Reasons for Judgment Re Costs

Aitken J.

Nature of Proceedings

1The Defendant, Aleks Mladenovic, seeks costs against the Plaintiff, Simintaj Rahsepar, in the total amount of $11,797, following the dismissal of this action on February 29, 2016 after a motion for summary judgment. I am assuming that the Plaintiff’s position regarding costs is that the Defendant should pay her costs or, at the very least, that she should not be ordered to pay his costs. The materials submitted by the Plaintiff, following the release of my Reasons for Judgment on February 29, 2016, relate more to her original claim against the Defendant, and her claims against several defendants in action no. 08-CV-42095SR, than they do to the issue of costs.

Background

2The background to this litigation is set out in my Reasons for Judgment dated February 29, 2016. What can be gleaned from that summary is that the Plaintiff consistently refused to accept the advice of the Defendant, and that obstinacy on her part did not serve her well. It resulted in her losing the opportunity to settle action no. 08-CV-42095SR on a without costs basis. Instead, that action was dismissed with costs against the Plaintiff following motions for summary judgment by the defendants (Rahsepar v. Nelson House of Ottawa-Carleton Inc., 2016 ONSC 1419).

Relevant Factors

Principle of Indemnity

3The Defendant’s counsel has been practising law for 19 years. On this file, he charged at the rate of $300 per hour, though his usual hourly rate is $375. I find this hourly rate to be within an acceptable range, and it was not questioned by the Plaintiff.

4The number of hours devoted to the file to prepare for and attend at the motion for summary judgment was 33.9 hours, an amount I consider somewhat excessive but, again, the time was not challenged by the Plaintiff.

Principle of Proportionality

5It is difficult to assess what the Plaintiff would have expected in terms of reasonable legal fees on the motion for summary judgment, in that her expectations in regard to other aspects of the litigation in which she has been involved have been unrealistic. Looked at objectively, and considering the relatively straight forward materials and only brief submissions required of the Defendant on this motion for summary judgment (due in great measure to most of the work having been done by others in the sister motions for summary judgment in action no. 08-CV-42095SR), I would think a reasonably-minded plaintiff in the circumstances of this case would have anticipated costs against him or her in the approximate amount of $7,500-10,000.

Amount Claimed and Recovered

6The Plaintiff claimed damages against the Defendant in the amount of $600,000 for inflicting unnecessary physical and emotional pain, causing financial damage, and causing the loss of income and gainful opportunities. She also sought special damages in the amount of $500,000, damages for breach of trust in the amount of $100,000, and punitive damages in the amount of $250,000. The Plaintiff recovered nothing in damages.

Complexity of the Proceeding

7The motion for summary judgment was not complicated in that it was piggy-backed on the motions for summary judgment of the defendants in action no. 08-CV-42095SR. Therefore, much of the background for the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was set out in the materials on the other motions for summary judgment heard immediately prior to this motion.

8As well, the factual framework in regard to the Defendant’s involvement in the Plaintiff’s litigation was easy to recount.

Importance of the Issues

9The issues in action no. 08-CV-42095SR were very important to the Plaintiff and to the defendants in that action. The issues in this litigation were important to the Defendant, in that it impacted his reputation in the legal community. In regard to the Plaintiff, the issues were important because she desperately wanted to find someone to blame for the hardships that she perceives herself and her children to have suffered. If the defendants in action no. 08-CV-42095SR were not going to be held accountable by the courts, then she wanted to ensure that someone was labelled a wrong-doer and held accountable, and the Defendant became the target.

Conduct of the Parties

10There is nothing in the manner in which the Defendant conducted himself in his dealings with the Plaintiff that lengthened unduly this litigation. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, made this litigation more difficult due to the nature of the materials which she filed (often irrelevant to the issue at hand), the format of the materials (not in keeping with the requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure), and the rambling and repetitive style of writing.

Steps in the Proceedings

11It cannot be said that any step in the proceeding was improper, vexatious, or unnecessary or was taken through negligence, mistake, or excessive caution. This was a simple motion for summary judgment with no interim steps required or taken.

Party’s Denial or Refusal to Admit

12With the Plaintiff having no case against any of the defendants in action no. 08-CV-42095SR, and with none of the reasons for her failure in that action having anything to do with the actions or inactions of the Defendant in this action, the Plaintiff clearly had no argument to make in response to the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Despite that, she did not agree to a dismissal of her action against the Defendant, but soldiered on and fought the dismissal. This was a waste of time and put the Defendant to additional, unnecessary, costs.

Other Matters

13As I explained in some detail in my costs award in regard to action no. 08-CV-42095SR, I have some concerns regarding the Plaintiff’s mental status. It may be that she is incapable of helping herself in terms of accepting expert advice and avoiding unnecessary and, ultimately, harmful, litigation.

14As well, as I explained in my costs decision in action no. 08-CV-42095SR, in regard to the administrative dismissal of the Plaintiff’s action at a time when the action had been stayed so that a capacity assessment could be conducted of the Plaintiff, I assign no fault to the Plaintiff or the Defendant. In my view, that administrative dismissal should not have occurred at a time when the action was stayed. I note that the Defendant took steps to have the litigation reinstated at no cost to the Plaintiff.

Conclusion

15Taking these considerations into account, I find that a fair, reasonable, and proportionate cost award is for the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant costs of this action fixed in the amount of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Aitken J.

Released: July 14, 2016