Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-17-572977 Court File No.: CV-17-574683 Date: 2018/10/15 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Application brought pursuant to Rules 14.02(3), 14.05(3)(d), 14.05(3)(e), 14.05(3)(g) and 14.05(3)(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 51 (2) of the Land Titles Act.

Between:

Aragon (Wellesley) Development (Ontario) Corporation Applicant – and – Piller Investments Limited, Glad Day Bookshop Inc., Toronto General Trusts Corporation or its successor, Eleanor Jane Stevenson, David William Robert Stevenson, Ruth Clare Stevenson, also known as Ruth Clare Lodge, Catherine Elizabeth Stevenson, Robert William Stevenson, William Alexander Young, Donald Gordon Young, Katherine Anne Lodge, David Arthur Lodge, John Steven Lodge, Margaret Jean (Peggy) Williams, John Douglas Williams, Elizabeth Jane Williams, Adrienne Jane Stevenson, Faith Elaine Dinsdale, John David Dinsdale, Brendan Scott McCallum, Kaitlin Sarah McCallum, Celina Egialak Hogaluk, Troy Justin Kakapak Oakoak, David Alexander Young, Duncan Alexander Young, Alicia Meagan Young, Robin Leigh Reid, Tobin James Reid, Samantha Celotto Lodge, and Travis Celotto Lodge Respondents

Counsel: Melvyn L. Solmon and Cameron Wetmore for the Respondent Piller Investments Limited William Alexander Young, self-represented John David Dinsdale, self-represented

And Between:

Piller Investments Limited Applicant

• and – Aragon (Wellesley) Development (Ontario) Corporation, First Elnor Holdings Limited, Pusateri International Group Inc., 9775056 Canada Inc., IMH 77 Wellesley Ltd., Toronto General Trusts Corporation, Eleanor Jane Stevenson, David William Robert Stevenson, Ruth Clare Stevenson, also known as Ruth Clare Lodge, Catherine Elizabeth Stevenson, Robert William Stevenson, William Alexander Young, Donald Gordon Young, Katherine Anne Lodge, David Arthur Lodge, John Steven Lodge, Margaret Jean (Peggy) Williams, John Douglas Williams, Elizabeth Jane Williams, Adrienne Jane Stevenson, Faith Elaine Dinsdale, John David Dinsdale, Brendan Scott McCallum, Kaitlin Sarah McCallum, Celina Egialak Hogaluk, Troy Justin Kakapak Oakoak, David Alexander Young, Duncan Alexander Young, Alicia Meagan Young, Robin Leigh Reid, Tobin James Reid, Samantha Celotto Lodge, and Travis Celotto Lodge Respondents

Counsel: Melvyn L. Solmon and Cameron Wetmore for the Applicant William Alexander Young, self-represented John David Dinsdale, self-represented

Heard: In writing

Perell, J.

Reasons for Decision - Costs

[1] In two competing applications brought by neighbouring property owners in the City of Toronto, Aragon (Wellesley) Development (Ontario) Corporation (“Aragon”), which is the owner of 81 Wellesley St. East, and Piller Investments Limited (“Piller”), which is the owner of 495-501 Church St., fought over the ownership of an L-shaped Land parcel of land between the western boundary of the Aragon Property and the eastern boundary of the Piller Property.

[2] I granted Aragon’s application, and I dismissed Piller’s application. [^1] I ordered that if the parties, including John David Dinsdale and William Alexander Young, who were self-represented participants in the land ownership dispute between Aragon and Piller, could not agree about the matter of costs, then they could make submissions in writing beginning with Aragon’s, Mr. Young’s and Mr. Dinsdale’s submissions, followed by Piller’s submissions. Aragon and Piller settled the matter of costs, but Messrs. Young and Dinsdale and Piller did not.

[3] During the course of the proceedings, there was a period of time when Messrs. Dinsdale and Young were represented by Davis Barristers (Alan J. Davis), and they claim costs from Piller of $12,432.83 on a substantial indemnity scale or $8,288.25 on a partial indemnity scale.

[4] For the period of time during which they were self-represented litigants, Mr. Dinsdale claims costs of $26,123.93 from Piller and Mr. Young claims costs of $31,671.05 from Piller.

[5] Mr. Dinsdale and Mr. Young are entitled to an indemnification on a partial indemnity basis for the legal expenses associated with their retaining Davis Barristers, but save for proper disbursements, they are not entitled to any costs for their own legal services as self-represented litigants.

[6] A self-represented litigant is entitled to costs only if he or she establishes that they forwent remunerative activity to prosecute the claim or to defend it. [^2] In Fong v. Chan (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330 (C.A.) [^3], Justice Sharpe stated at para.26:

“…The self-represented litigant should not recover costs for the time and effort that any litigant would have to devote to the case. Costs should only be awarded to those lay litigants who can demonstrate that they devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct the litigation and that, as a result, they incurred an opportunity cost by forgoing remunerative activity. As the early Chancery rule recognized, a self-represented lay litigant should receive only a "moderate" or "reasonable" allowance for the loss of time devoted to preparing and presenting the case. This excludes routine awards on a per diem basis to litigants who would ordinarily be in attendance at court in any event.”

[7] Neither Mr. Young nor Mr. Dinsdale established that they lost an opportunity for remuneration as a result of time spent doing work ordinarily done by a lawyer. As such, costs are not available to them for their time spent.

[8] Mr. Young and Mr. Dinsdale are entitled to an indemnification for the legal expense of Mr. Davis’s legal service on a partial indemnity basis. There is no basis for an award based on a full or substantial indemnity. I award $8,288.25 on a partial indemnity scale for the time when Messrs. Dinsdale and Young were represented by Davis Barristers.

[9] Messrs. Dinsdale and Young are also entitled to their assessable disbursements, which come to $1,968.40.

[10] Order accordingly.

Perell, J. Released: October 15, 2018

Citations

[^1]: Aragon (Wellesley) Development (Ontario) Corp. v. Piller Investments Ltd., 2018 ONSC 4607. [^2]: Mustang Investigations v. Ironside, 2010 ONSC 3444 (Div. Ct); Edelstein v. Monteleone, 2017 ONSC 7446 (Div. Ct.); Fong v. Chan (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330 (C.A.). [^3]: (1999), , 46 O.R. (3d) 330 (C.A.).