Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-447350 DATE: 20181211 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Angela Fleming Halley, Plaintiff AND: Toronto Transit Commission and Natalie Chamber, Defendants

BEFORE: Carole J. Brown, J.

COUNSEL: Angela Fleming Halley, Self-represented Stephen Sargent, for the Defendants

HEARD: In writing

Costs Endorsement

[1] This jury trial, estimated to be two weeks in length, came before me on October 12, 2018. The defendant brought preliminary motions to have the matter dismissed or struck from the trial list. The two motions consisted firstly of a motion to have the matter dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiff had failed to comply with an Order of Sanderson J to pay costs thrown away from an earlier adjournment. The second motion was a summary judgment or partial summary judgment motion dismissing all or part of the plaintiff’s action or, alternatively, striking the action from the trial list.

[2] The plaintiff had adduced no or no sufficient evidence to establish that she suffered from a serious, permanent impairment as required by the Insurance Act and, accordingly, I granted the defendant’s summary judgment motion and, in all of the circumstances of the case, dismissed the action. I did not determine the second motion regarding whether the action should be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order as I had already dismissed the action on the basis of the summary judgment motion.

[3] The defendant seeks its costs in the amount of $47,785.82 on a partial indemnity basis.

[4] The plaintiff submits that she has lost $650 in wages, $600 in commissions, $250 in parking and $100 in gas, and seeks reimbursement for these amounts.

[5] Costs are generally intended to compensate the successful party to litigation for some of the legal costs it has incurred in the litigation. In this case, the defendant was wholly successful in its summary judgment motion and is entitled to its costs.

[6] I have considered the factors set forth at Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as reasonableness and proportionality. As regards Rule 57, while the plaintiff was self-represented throughout, the objectives behind Rule 57 apply to both unrepresented and represented parties: Montague v TPC, 2017 ONSC 4617.

[7] The defendant has quantified its costs on a partial indemnity basis in the total amount of $42,900 and disbursements of $4,885.85, for a total of $47,785.82. The bill of costs includes the fees of a TTC counsel who is now retired, and did not submit dockets on this file. Her fees are indicated on the bill of costs to be “informed estimates on known steps in the litigation” from September 7, 2012 to December 2016 in the amount of $13,300.

[8] I have taken into consideration the factors noted at paragraph 6, above. I have further taken into consideration the estimated costs of the now-retired TTC counsel and the reasonableness of the costs sought, as well as the principle of proportionality. I have further taken into consideration the fact that the plaintiff, at the time of the motion for dismissal, advised that she had no means to pay costs, although she did not provide any evidence of impecuniosity, nor of her financial circumstances. Taking into consideration and reducing the costs of the now-retired TTC counsel, which were not docketed but rather estimated, and taking into consideration all factors above, I award total fees of $35,000 and disbursements of $4,885.82, payable forthwith by the plaintiff to the defendant.

Carole J. Brown, J. Date: December 11, 2018