Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 659/17 Date: 2019 07 11 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: M.W., Plaintiff/Respondent And: Halton Regional Police Services Board and Constable Ross Amore, Defendants/Moving Parties

Before: Conlan J.

Counsel: Davin Charney, Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent Robin Squires/Natalie Salafia, Counsel for the Defendants/Moving Parties

Endorsement

Motion for Summary Judgment - Costs

Introduction

[1] On February 16, 2017, the Plaintiff, M.W., commenced a Notice of Action against the Defendants, Halton Regional Police Services Board and Detective Constable Ross Amore.

[2] In that pleading, M.W. sought damages in the amount of $150,000.00. He alleged that the Defendants were liable for false arrest, false imprisonment, negligent investigation, malicious breach of public duty, malicious prosecution, misfeasance of public office, and violating M.W.’s Charter rights.

[3] In addition to having defended the action, the Defendants brought a Motion for summary judgment to dismiss it.

[4] The Defendants’ Motion for summary judgment was finished being argued at Court on May 23, 2019.

[5] In typed reasons, partial summary judgment was granted in favour of the Defendants, dismissing all but one of the causes of action pleaded by the Plaintiff. The sole matter that was permitted to proceed is the allegation that the police violated M.W.’s Charter rights on February 19, 2015.

[6] In terms of the degree of success enjoyed by the Defendants, it is worth quoting from the Court’s conclusion in its Endorsement that disposed of the Motion for summary judgment: “[t]he Motion for summary judgment is granted in large part . All claims are dismissed on a final basis except for the allegation that the Police violated M.W.’s Charter rights in the context of what happened at the police station on February 19, 2015” (emphasis added).

[7] Having been unable to settle the issue of costs of the Motion, the parties have filed written submissions, which have been reviewed.

[8] The largely successful Defendants, presumed to be entitled to some costs, request that they be awarded, on a partial indemnity scale, costs in the total amount of $26,687.94.

[9] The Plaintiff asks that costs be fixed in favour of the Defendants in the total amount of $8,807.02 (representing two-thirds of half of the $26,687.94 figure).

Decision

[10] I agree with counsel for M.W. on two points: (i) the alleged modest means of the Plaintiff ought to be considered as one factor in assessing the quantum of costs that is fair, just, reasonable, and proportionate in all of the circumstances of this case, and (ii) there ought to be some reduction in the partial indemnity costs to be awarded to the Defendants to account for the fact that they were largely, but not entirely, successful on their Motion for summary judgment.

[11] I disagree, however, that those two points support reducing the costs to be awarded to the Defendants to a rather measly $8,807.02.

[12] First, I would observe that the Defendants’ request for $26,687.94 already reflects a reduction in the partial indemnity costs delineated in the Defendants’ Costs Outline ($33,887.73 total).

[13] Second, I highlight the fact that the Defendants were successful on the Motion “in large part”.

[14] On this Motion, much material was filed, electronic and written, including transcripts of out-of-court examinations on affidavit evidence. In addition, two Court attendances were required for argument, though not at the fault of either side.

[15] Interestingly, very recently, this Court had occasion to decide costs in another civil action against police in Peel Region. In that case, the Plaintiff, Mr. James, moved for summary judgment, which was denied. The successful police Defendants were awarded $30,000.00, total, in partial indemnity costs (reduced by this Court from $34,417.02).

[16] Every case, of course, is different. But that is one indication of the reasonableness of the position of the Defendants here. In the Peel case, the materials filed were less extensive than in the present matter, and just one Court attendance (not two) was required to argue the Motion in Peel.

[17] In all of the circumstances, on further account of the two points raised by counsel for M.W., summarized above, I will exercise my discretion to reduce the costs to be awarded to the Defendants to an even $25,000.00, all-inclusive.

[18] I order that M.W. pay costs to the Defendants in the total amount of $25,000.00, payable within thirty (30) days of the date of this Endorsement.

Conlan J. Date: July 11, 2019