COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00607488-0000
DATE: 2019/08/07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Mohamed AbdullahI, self-rep as BARUUTMAN and on behalf of PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM), and FAIZA ALI
Plaintiffs
- and -
CHILDREN AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO, ALBERTA DANSO and MENA GILL, TORONTO POLICE SERVICE BOARD, CHIEF MARK SAUNDERS, ELIZABETH BYRNES, JAMES CASE, KRYSTAL MACLEOD, JASON MAUNDER, PAUL WALKER, MICHAEL HENRY, TODD BELZA and JAMES MUIRHEAD, THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, JENNIFER GIBSON, REBECCA LAW and JOANNE BRUNO
Defendants
Mohamed Abdullahi, self-represented
Brennagh Smith for the Defendants Toronto Police Service Board, Chief Mark Saunders, Elizabeth Byrnes, James Casey, Krystal MacLeod, Jason Maunder, Paul Walker, Michael Henry, Todd Belza, and James Muirhead
HEARD: May 31, 2019
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
[1] The self-represented Plaintiff, Mohamed Abdullahi, has brought an action against: (a) the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto and two of its employees; (b) the Ministry of Attorney General, and three Crown attorneys; and, (c) the Toronto Police Service Board, and ten police officers: Chief Mark Saunders, Elizabeth Byrnes, James Casey, Krystal MacLeod, Jason Maunder, Paul Walker, Michael Henry, Todd Belza, and James Muirhead, hereinafter referred to as “the Police Defendants”.
[2] In his Amended Statement of Claim, Mr. Abdullahi advances numerous causes of action, including: negligence, defamation, wilful misconduct, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, unlawful conduct conspiracy, abuse of process, and breach of the sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
[3] Pursuant to Rule 21 the Police Defendants sought an order that Mr. Abdullahi’s libel action be struck out and that all references to it should be struck from his Amended Statement of Claim on the ground that Mr. Abdullahi failed to provide the notice required by s. 5(1) of the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12.
[4] It required two attendances for the argument of the motion along with a companion Rule 21 motion brought by other defendants.
[5] The evidence and argument presented at the first attendance was based on both the Police Defendants and also the Attorney General Defendants deposing that they had diligently searched their records to determine whether Mr. Abdullahi had sent the notices required by the Libel and Slander Act and the Proceedings Against the Crown Act. Their witnesses deposed that they could find no record of having received the notices. They deposed that Mr. Abdullahi had not responded to their requests to prove that he had given notice. I adjourned the first hearing to allow Mr. Abdullahi to proffer additional evidence, which he did.
[6] Mr. Abdullahi provided the evidence of the requisite notices having been given, received, and acknowledged, with the result that on the second attendance, the Police Defendants’ argument became that the notice under the Libel and Slander Act was untimely and that Mr. Abdullahi’s libel action was, in any event, statute-barred under that Act.
[7] I granted the Police Defendants’ motion.[^1] Mr. Abdullahi’s libel claim was struck out. Mr. Abdullahi’s various other actions against the Police Defendants will proceed bereft of this additional claim.
[8] The Police Defendants submitted costs submissions in writing. Mr. Abdullahi did not file any responding costs submissions.
[9] Subsection 456(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006 S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sch A, states that where a local board of the City (such as the Toronto Police Services Board) is a party to an action and is represented by a salaried solicitor, costs should not be disallowed or reduced merely because of that fact. Section 36 of the Solicitors Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-15, has a parallel provision as it relates to a party's salaried lawyer.
[10] With disbursements, the Police Defendant's partial indemnity costs for the motion are $11,345.00. However, they seek only $4,000.00, all inclusive. Commendably, the Police Defendants discounted their claim for costs out of consideration for the Plaintiff’s ability to pay and because he is self-represented litigant.
[11] I am granting the Police Defendants’ costs requests but making the costs payable to the Police Defendants in any event of the cause and not forthwith, which in my opinion is the appropriate award to make in the circumstances of the immediate case when Mr. Abdullahi’s action is continuing against the Police Defendants.
[12] Order accordingly.
Perell, J.
Released: August 7, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-00607488
DATE: 2019/08/07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Mohamed AbdullahI, self-rep as BARUUTMAN and on behalf of PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM), and FAIZA ALI
Plaintiffs
- and -
CHILDREN AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO, ALBERTA DANSO and MENA GILL, TORONTO POLICE SERVICE BOARD, CHIEF MARK SAUNDERS, ELIZABETH BYRNES, JAMES CASE, KRYSTAL MACLEOD, JASON MAUNDER, PAUL WALKER, MICHAEL HENRY, TODD BELZA and JAMES MUIRHEAD, THE MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, JENNIFER GIBSON, REBECCA LAW and JOANNE BRUNO
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
PERELL J.
Released: August 7, 2019
[^1]: Abdullahi et al. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto et al. 2019 ONSC 3816.