CITATION: Coady v. Scotiabank, 2017 ONSC 2724
COURT FILE NO.: CV12-0700
DATE: May 1, 2017
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MARTHA COADY
Plaintiff
– and –
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA a.k.a. SCOTIABANK, SCOTIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION AND A PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN
Defendants
THE LIBRARIAN AND ARCHIVIST OF CANADA
Respondent
Self-represented
Evan Cappe, for the Defendants
Helene Robertson, for Attorney General of Canada
RULING ON COSTS
JOHNSTON J.
[1] This is a Ruling on Costs, following my decision dated November 13, 2015; wherein the motion of the Attorney General of Canada was granted in its entirety.
[2] The Attorney General of Canada’s motion sought to vary my previous Order dated December 17, 2013, which was obtained by the Plaintiff/Moving Party without notice to the Attorney General of Canada. Further, the motion sought to quash the Summons to Witness for certain officials of the Library and Archives of Canada.
[3] The Moving Party on this Motion, the Attorney General of Canada, was successful and, accordingly, prima facie is entitled to costs.
[4] The Attorney General of Canada seeks costs fixed in the amount of $4,000.00 on a partial indemnity basis. The Attorney General of Canada states in its submissions on costs, that the full costs would be $6,553.59.
[5] In assessing the appropriate quantum of costs, I consider the following factors: success of the parties; conduct of the parties, the amount of cost that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, the principle of indemnity, other related issues and, of course, success on the motion.
[6] I am advised that the Department of Justice bills its clients on a cost recovery basis. Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada is a salaried lawyer employed by the Federal Department of Justice.
[7] Ms. Coady argues she is of limited financial means.
[8] While the Attorney General of Canada was entirely successful, I consider the fact that this Court did issue the original Order. In retrospect, the Court ought to have refused the Order, until the Third Party was served and given an opportunity to respond. Ms. Coady is not a lawyer but has legal training. There was some obligation on the Moving Party to have provided notice, notwithstanding the order was initially granted.
[9] Ms. Coady, when given notice by the Third Party of its challenge to the Order on the grounds of lack of notice, ought to have consented.
[10] In all the circumstance, given the losing party’s financial circumstance, the successful party’s position and the circumstance of the case, costs are Ordered payable by Ms. Coady to the Third Party, however, costs are reduced as follows:
a) Full disbursements are ordered: $317.49, and
b) Legal fees and HST fixed at $600.00.
[11] Costs are payable by Ms. Coady within 30 days.
The Honourable Mr. Justice J. M. Johnston
Released: May 1, 2017
CITATION: Coady v. Scotiabank, 2017 ONSC 2724
COURT FILE NO.: CV12-0700
DATE: May 1, 2017
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
MARTHA COADY
Plaintiff
– and –
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA a.k.a. SCOTIABANK, SCOTIA MORTGAGE CORPORATION AND A PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN
Defendants
- and –
THE LIBRARIAN AND ARCHIVIST OF CANADA
Respondent
RULING ON COSTS
Johnston J.
Released: May 1, 2017