Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-19-00000366-0000 Date: 2020-07-08 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: Walter Zanewycz Plaintiff/Applicant Self-represented, for the Plaintiff/Applicant

- and -

Cheadles LLP Defendant/Respondent M. Moktar, for the Defendant/Respondent

Heard: Written Submissions

Before: Mr. Justice W. D. Newton

Decision on Cost

[1] In reasons released on May 7, 2020 (Zanewycz v. Cheadles, 2020 ONSC 2817) I dismissed the plaintiff’s claim as disclosing no cause of action and as a vexatious proceeding.

[2] I sought cost submissions in writing. Mr. Zanewycz has not filed responding submissions in response to the defendant’s claims for costs.

[3] The defendants seek substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $24,963.03 inclusive of HST and disbursements or, alternatively, partial indemnity costs in the amount of $17,775.89.

[4] In supporting their claims for costs, the defendants argue that as the successful party they are entitled to costs and that, in addition to indemnification, costs awards are important in discouraging frivolous proceedings and inappropriate behaviour.

[5] My prior reasons outline the litigation history which was characterized by attempts by Mr. Zanewycz to circumvent prior orders and to avoid or ignore prior cost orders. The tactics adopted by Mr. Zanewycz required counsel to review significant amounts of material that were largely irrelevant to the issues before me.

[6] In dismissing his action I noted:

[30] All these characteristics are present in this case. Mr. Zanewycz seeks to keep contesting the order of the assessment officer from 2009. As noted, the claims in the present action are either statute barred or otherwise devoid of merit. Numerous judges have concluded that the plaintiff’s claims are not legitimate, but Mr. Zanewycz persists in forcing the defendants to engage in protracted and expensive litigation. Grounds and issues raised in the past continue to be raised and repeated. Costs have been awarded against Mr. Zanewycz and the cost awards remain unsatisfied. Costs are often an effective way for the courts to control conduct of litigants. Because he is, by his own admission, impecunious, Mr. Zanewycz is immune to costs orders. As the history of this litigation demonstrates, all appeals by Mr. Zanewycz have been unsuccessful. While the issue of whether Mr. Zanewycz is a vexatious litigant is not before me, all the characteristics of vexatious litigation are present in this case. The procedural history of this motion with Mr. Zanewycz’s many requests for adjournments and the reasons for those requests reinforces the conclusion that this litigation is vexatious.

[7] I agree with the submissions of Ms. Moktar that substantial indemnity costs are appropriate given the vexatious nature of the proceedings, the many irrelevant issues raised by the plaintiff and the completely unsubstantiated but serious allegations raised against the defendants.

[8] I have reviewed the bill of costs and the time claimed by Ms. Moktar and Mr. Sinclair. I am satisfied the time claimed for services is reasonable. The defendants shall have their costs payable on a substantial indemnity basis by Mr. Zanewycz in the amount of $24,963.03 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

“Original signed by” The Hon. Mr. Justice W.D. Newton

Released: July 8, 2020