Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR-18-0006-MO DATE: 2018-11-02 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Attorney General of Canada Respondent
– and –
Shawn Samuel Applicant
Counsel: Stewart Phillips and Ani Mamikon, for the Respondent J. Todd Sloan, for the Applicant
HEARD: In Writing
Reasons for Decision on Costs
1Mr. Samuel brought an application for habeas corpus which was dismissed. This application was somewhat unusual in that Mr. Samuel’s counsel requested an adjournment at the end of argument, to conduct further research and make submissions. His request was granted. He filed further materials. The AG then filed further responding materials. Accordingly, this application required more work on the part of the AG than would a habeas corpus application that had proceeded in the usual course.
2The AG seeks costs of $15,951.78 inclusive of HST and disbursements.
3There is well established authority for awarding costs where a habeas corpus application is in relation to a civil matter1. In Campbell at para 13, the court stated, “such applications are civil in nature because they relate to the administration of the lawful sentence by public authorities, rather than the legality of the original conviction or indictment.” Costs have been fixed in amounts from $750 (Wood) to $5,000 (Campbell). As in all civil matters, fairness, reasonableness and proportionality must be considered in awarding costs. In Wood, para 69, and 70, the court stated,
At the same time, costs cannot become a roadblock to accessing the writ of habeas corpus. After all, habeas corpus is the law’s oldest frontline Bastian of protection against “unlawful” loss of liberty; in modern times including the protection against “unlawful” reduction or restriction of residual liberty interests of inmates. Habeas corpus can be an efficacious remedy suited to respond to a multitude of situations. Money cannot be made to act as a bar to its resort.
In the end, the just balance is found in imposing more modest cost the words relative to the length of the hearings, the conduct of the party and the merits of the claim then might otherwise be imposed recognizing and inmate’s special situation.
4Ultimately, in fixing an amount for costs, the overriding principles are fairness and reasonableness. See Boucher v. Public Accountants, 2004 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291.
5Given the fact that this application required somewhat more work on the part of the AG as a result of Mr. Samuel’s request for an adjournment to file further materials, I find that a fair, reasonable and proportionate costs award for this is application is $6,000, all inclusive, which the applicant shall pay to the AG.
Madam Justice M.E. Vallee
Released: November 2, 2018
Footnotes
- Wood v. Atlantic Institution (Warden), 2014 NBQB 135, [2014] N.B.J. No. 278; Tyler v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 O.J. No. 1359; Karafa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2016] O.J. No. 2104; Robinson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONSC 7992, [2013] O.J. No. 5997; R. v. Campbell, [2010] O.J. No. 5157; and, Lee v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ABQB 40, [2018] A.J. No. 51.