Of the CITATION: Adwella/Reyes v. ACRB, 2020 ONSC 7971
COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-006
DATE: 20201221
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Maxine Adwella a.k.a. Althea Reyes, Appellant
AND:
Animal Care Review Board, Respondent
AND:
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario, Moving Party
BEFORE: Justice Vella
COUNSEL: Claudia Brabazon and Jason Kirsh for the Moving Party
HEARD: In Writing
costs ENDORSEMENT
[1] On November 18, 2020 I dismissed the appeal on the basis that the true identity of the appellant is Althea Reyes using the alias of Maxine Adwella. I dismissed the appeal as an abuse of process and pursuant to Rule 2.1.03 as Ms. Reyes has been declared a vexatious litigant and had not sought leave of this court before commencing her appeal.
[2] In my reasons for the dismissal I invited the Crown to provide it costs outline and directed the Crown to provide a copy to Ms. Reyes. I also invited Ms. Reyes to provide me with her written submissions if she opposed the Crown’s request for costs (including at the elevated scale of full indemnity costs that are being sought by the Crown) and to provide me with her written submissions by no later than November 30, 2020.
[3] As of the date of the release of this endorsement, I have received no submissions from Ms. Reyes.
[4] I have considered the authorities provided by the Crown in support of the Crown’s position that it is entitled to costs notwithstanding that it is sought for lawyers who are salaried officers of the Crown; section 131(2) of the Courts of Justice Act and section 36 of the Solicitors Act.
[5] I have considered whether this is a matter that requires an award of costs on the elevated scale of full indemnity and have concluded that it is. Ms. Reyes used an alias that had the effect of subverting the vexatious litigant order made by Justice Perell on May 31, 2017. Ms. Reyes has been the subject of numerous orders in which proceedings commenced by her, without leave, have been struck under Rule 2.1.03. See for example, Reyes v. Jocelyn, 2016 ONSC 5568, Reyes v. Buhler, 2016 ONSC 5559 and Reyes v. Embry, 2016 ONSC 5558 (regarding a prior vexatious litigant order made against Ms. Reyes by Justice Kershman). Ms. Reyes has committed conduct in the course of this proceeding that is reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous and as such warrants the court’s disapproval of her conduct in this litigation.
[6] I have also considered the factors for assessing costs prescribed by rule 57.01(1).
[7] Ms. Reyes has been the subject of prior full indemnity costs awards for having violated vexatious litigant orders. Therefore, it is a reasonable expectation that Ms. Reyes would have to pay full indemnity costs for similar future transgressions.
[8] The issues raised by Ontario with respect to the public interest concerning the proper administration of justice and seeing that court orders are followed, particularly when it was the Ministry of the Attorney General who obtained the vexatious litigant order from Justice Perell, against Ms. Reyes, also supports a full indemnity costs award.
[9] Ms. Reyes’ conduct throughout this proceeding unduly lengthened and complicated it. For example, commencing the appeal under an alias caused the Crown to have to undertake extensive work to investigate both the identity of the Appellant and the identity of the Complainant in the underlying Animal Care Review Board proceedings.
[10] I had examined the underlying dockets and the hourly rates sought by senior Crown counsel and junior Crown counsel. The hourly rates are claimed on a substantial indemnity basis as that effectively constitutes full indemnity factoring in the amounts charged to the Crown (Chiefs of Ontario v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, 2007 CanLII 24086 (ON SC). I note that the Crown has reduced the number of hours incurred by over 50% and is only charging time incurred in preparation of the motion materials, bill of costs, attending one case conference (there were 3) attendance on the motion, research and analysis.
[11] The Crown seeks $6,439.25 all inclusive for fees and disbursements. Senior Crown counsel’s substantial indemnity hourly rate is listed at $240.00 save for attendance on the motion for two hours at $480 per hour. Junior Crown counsel’s substantial indemnity hourly rate is listed at $90.00. The articling student’s substantial indemnity hourly rate is $45.00.
[12] The only rate I take issue with is the substantial indemnity rate at $480.00 per hour charged by senior Crown counsel for attendance at the motion.
[13] I therefore fix costs on a full indemnity scale in the sum of $6,000.00, payable by Ms. Reyes within 60 days from the date of this order.
[14] I commend Crown counsel for their diligence and high standards on this challenging matter.
Justice Vella
Date: December 21, 2020