Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-16-565264 DATE: 2019-06-20 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Michael Collinson, Applicant AND: Chitiz Pathak LLP, Respondent

BEFORE: Pollak J.

COUNSEL: Michael Collinson, self-represented Applicant/Respondent Alastair McNish, for the Respondent/Appellant

HEARD: January 29, 2019

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] The successful party on this appeal, Mr. Collinson has submitted submissions requesting a higher cost allocation than that agreed to between the parties at the hearing of this appeal.

[2] At the hearing, the parties agreed that costs of $2,500 on a partial indemnity basis to be awarded to this successful party on this appeal. The court also informed the parties that they would be given the opportunity to make additional submissions online and entitlement to a higher scale of costs than that of partial indemnity. The reason that a party may be awarded costs on a higher scale can, for example, be that the party is relying on the rules governing the cost consequences of a party being awarded a higher amount by the court than that which was offered by the party relying on, as a rule, prior to the hearing.

[3] In this case the successful party, Mr. Collinson, urges the Court to vary the agreement between the parties reached during the hearing, because as a self-represented party he was “unaware of what is a typical cost allowance for an appeal and that the Appellant took advantage of this lack of knowledge to agree to an unreasonably low amount of costs”.

[4] Mr. Collinson has also submitted that as the Appellant was late in presenting its cost submissions in reply to his, that this Court should not take those submissions into consideration.

[5] It is not necessary for the Court to consider the submissions of the Appellant in this case with respect to whether the Court should enforce the agreement of the parties with respect to costs going to the victorious party.

[6] While I appreciate that it is difficult for a self-represented party to participate in Court proceedings, I am of the view that in this case, the Court should enforce the agreement on costs between the parties. I find that the agreement the parties reached with respect to costs was reasonable and should be enforced.

[7] Further, I find that it is appropriate in this case to award costs on a partial indemnity basis as there is no legal justification for the award of costs on a higher scale to Mr. Collinson.

[8] I therefore award costs in the amount of $2,500 to be paid by the Appellant to Mr. Collinson. This amount is inclusive of all applicable taxes and GST.

Pollak J.

Date: June 20, 2019