CITATION: Wakulich v. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2017 ONSC 7342
COURT FILE NO.: CR4526/17
DATE: 2017/12/08
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: William Wakulich, Applicant
AND: Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and The Corporation of the City of St. Catharines, Respondents
COUNSEL: Applicant self-represented;
Philip J. Kennedy, for the Respondents
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] I heard the applicant’s amended motions at Welland on September 8, 2017. I released a written decision on October 26, 2017. I have now received and reviewed costs submissions from both parties.
The Position of the Respondents – NPCA and St. Catharines (City)
[2] The Corporation of the City of St. Catharines (“the City”) and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (“NPCA”) were both successful on the motion brought by William Wakulich (“Wakulich”).
[3] The City seeks costs on a substantial indemnity scale fixed at $9,125.00 (rounded), including fees, disbursements and HST.
[4] The NPCA seeks its costs on a substantial indemnity scale fixed at $22,735.00 (rounded), including fees, disbursements and HST.
[5] The respondents submit that the applicant, who was self-represented, made arguments that were broad, unfocused, and without merit.
[6] The respondents submit that arguments of the applicant could be characterized as a total misapprehension of facts and a misunderstanding of the law.
[7] Further, the applicant, according to the respondents, has succeeded in causing substantial delays of the trial of each of the matters brought before the court, with each delay causing unnecessary attendances and wasted preparation time.
[8] The respondents further state that the applicant’s unchecked vexatious conduct should be “vigorously discouraged”. The result of the applicant’s conduct was a substantial expense to the respondents.
The Position of the Applicant (Wakulich)
[9] The applicant submits that there should be no order as to costs.
[10] The applicant further submits that under the Provincial Offences Act, the ordinary civil procedure rules pertaining to costs are not applicable. Generally, the principle that governs costs awards under s.142(5) of the Provincial Offences Act is that neither party is awarded costs. As a result, there should be no order as to costs in the instant case.
Analysis
[11] It is a general principle that costs, on an application under the Provincial Offences Act, are not governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure but by s.142(5) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c P.33.
[12] However, the Superior Court of Justice has a broad discretion under s.131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.43 and s.142(5) of the Provincial Offences Act to make such award of costs as the court deems fit under the circumstances.
[13] First, there is no doubt that the actions of the self-represented applicant substantially prolonged the litigation and necessitated multiple court attendances by the respondents. This substantially increased both respondents’ legal fees.
[14] I agree with the respondents that the applicant’s submissions were largely not focused, lacking in merit, and exhibited a misunderstanding of the facts and law.
[15] While the applicant is a self-represented litigant, that does not grant him immunity from legal fees incurred by the opposing side, particularly when legal arguments are unfocused and without any merit.
[16] Self-represented litigants cannot be free to conduct litigation with impunity. Parties, whether self-represented or not, must know that one of the consequences of unnecessary and without merit litigation is an adverse cost consequence.
[17] This court is also mindful of the fact, when fixing costs, that costs must be fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
[18] Previous cases on costs have noted that costs must not necessarily be simply a calculation of rates times the number of hours.
[19] I conclude that costs in the instant case should be at approximately a partial indemnity basis with some discount for overlap of work, given that the application was argued by same counsel for both the City and the NPCA.
[20] The costs fixed must be in an amount to completely discourage frivolous, vexatious, and without merit litigation.
[21] Accordingly, I fix the costs payable by the applicant Wakulich to the City at $4,500.00 all inclusive, and further fix costs payable by the applicant Wakulich to the NPCA fixed at $10,000.00 all inclusive.
Orders Made
[22] The following orders are made:
Costs fixed and payable by the applicant Wakulich to the Corporation of the City of St. Catharines are $4,500.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
Costs payable by the applicant Wakulich to the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority are fixed at $10,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST.
Both are payable within 60 days.
Maddalena J.
DATE: December 8, 2017
CITATION: Wakulich v. Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority, 2017 ONSC 7342
COURT FILE NO.: CR4526/17
DATE: 2017/12/08
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: William Wakulich, Applicant
AND: Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority and The Corporation of the City of St. Catharines, Respondents
COUNSEL: William Wakulich,
Self-represented
Philip J. Kennedy,
for the Respondents
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
Maddalena J.
DATE: December 8, 2017