Court File and Parties

NORTH BAY COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-002-0000

DATE: 2021/04/09

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Ronald Montreuil, Plaintiff

AND:

Larmer & Wayne Stickland et al., Defendants

BEFORE: Justice K.E. Cullin

COUNSEL: Ronald Montreuil, Plaintiff, Self-Represented

Peter Diavolitsis, for the Defendants, Larmer & Wayne Stickland

Sabrina Lucenti, for the Defendant, Geoffrey LaPlante

Adam Pantel, for the Defendant, John D’Agostino

James Ireland, Defendant, Self-Represented

Alexander Melfi, for the Defendant, William Sangster (Action CV-17-6731)

Wayne Stickland, for the Defendant, R.J.M. Garnets Inc. (Action CV-17-6731)

HEARD: November 26, 2020 and written submissions regarding costs

Endorsement

[1] This decision addresses the costs arising from the Defendants’ motion to regularize the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.

[2] This motion was brought by the Defendant Larmer Stickland and by the Defendant John D’Agostino. The Defendants, Geoffrey LaPlante and James Ireland, filed affidavit materials in support of the Defendants’ motion. The Plaintiff, Ronald Montreuil, was self-represented and opposed the motion.

[3] The Defendants were successful on the motion. All are seeking costs against the Plaintiff.

[4] The Plaintiff takes the position that costs should be awarded to him. In support of his position, he submits that: (1) he has not refused to amend his claim as he has served and filed a Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim as Ordered by the Court; (2) the motion was not caused by his conduct, but rather by the refusal of the Defendants (primarily the Defendants in the Plaintiff’s other action) to negotiate or mediate; and, (3) the Defendants in this action are liable to him as a result of their role as conspirators with the Defendants in the Plaintiff’s other action.

[5] Although, pursuant to s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, the award of costs is solely within the discretion of the Court, in the case of a contested motion costs are, by and large, a foregone conclusion. Rule 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, provides that, absent unusual circumstances, the Court is required to fix costs following a motion and to Order them to be payable within (30) days.

[6] It is a well-established principle in litigation that the successful party in a proceeding is presumptively entitled to their costs. In addition to the result of the proceeding the Court may, in exercising its discretion, consider any offers to settle, as well as the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1).

[7] An award of costs must reflect an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to the individual circumstances of a case (Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario), 2004 4579). Costs are intended to indemnify a successful party for the expense of being compelled to seek the assistance of the Court to resolve a dispute (British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, paras. 19-21).

[8] In this case, there can be no doubt that the Defendants were compelled to bring this motion. The Plaintiff’s actions in altering the Statement of Claim issued by the Court to create “individual” claims against each of the Defendants was a fundamental violation of the rules of pleading. The Defendants could not undertake even the rudimentary step of filing a Statement of Defence until the Plaintiff’s pleadings were regularized.

[9] When he was initially advised that his pleadings required amendment, the Plaintiff became combative. He accused the Defendants of engaging in subterfuge and he threatened to note them in default. Counsel for the Defendant, Geoffrey LaPlante, was required to serve and file a perfunctory Statement of Defence to avoid a default and an Order was eventually issued preventing the Plaintiff from noting any other party in default pending the motion.

[10] Case management meetings were conducted in an effort to resolve the issue of the Plaintiff’s pleadings short of proceeding with the motion. It quickly became apparent that the pleadings were only going to be amended following an Order, and that the Order was not going to be achieved on consent.

[11] I am mindful of the fact that the Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant. It is clear that the Plaintiff’s knowledge of civil procedure is limited and that this is acting as a barrier to him in participating in these proceedings.

[12] If the Plaintiff is going to proceed as a self-represented litigant, he must be prepared to accept constructive direction about Court procedure. To date, he has not demonstrated a willingness to do so. If, after receiving the Defendants’ motion, the Plaintiff had stopped to ask, “What is wrong with my pleadings and how can I fix them?”, it is likely that the Court would not have been inclined to award costs. Instead, he railed against the motion as a delay tactic and he sued the lawyer who brought it for having the audacity to bring a motion at all; he did this after being specifically advised against it by the Court.

[13] The Plaintiff has left the Court to use the only tool in its arsenal to send the message that there are consequences to adopting the combative approach that he has taken in this litigation. The Defendants cannot be expected to bear the financial consequences of the Plaintiff’s obstinance.

[14] The Plaintiff and the Defendants have submitted Costs Outlines seeking the following partial indemnity costs:

Name of Party

Fees & HST

Disbursements & HST

Total

Ronald Montreuil (Plaintiff)

$3,591.00 (HST: $466.83)

$509.64 (HST: $66.25)

$4,633.72

Larmer & Wayne Stickland (Defendant)

$5,276.64 (HST: $685.96)

$966.36 (HST: $84.02)

$7,012.98

Geoffrey LaPlante (Defendant)

$2,701.71 (HST: $351.22)

$91.85 ($11.88)

$3,120.10

John D’Agostino (Defendant)

$3,152.50 (HST: $409.83)

$638.00 (HST: $41.34)

$4,241.67

James Ireland (Defendant)

$1,200.00 (HST: $156.00)

$1,356.00

[15] The time incurred by the Defendants in proceeding with this motion was reasonable in the circumstances. There was some overlap in the materials submitted by the Defendants. I have considered whether it was necessary for all counsel to participate in the motion, or whether they could simply have permitted one counsel to take the lead and provided their consent to the motion. I have determined that it was necessary for all counsel to participate given the Plaintiff’s allegations against the individual Defendants and their counsel and his adversarial approach to the motion. This was an unfortunate strategy by the Plaintiff that has now exposed him to additional costs.

[16] I Order the Plaintiff to pay the following costs to the Defendants, with such costs to be payable within (30) days of the date of this Order:

a. To the Defendant, Larmer & Wayne Stickland, costs shall be payable in the sum of $5,650.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

b. To the Defendant, Geoffrey LaPlante, costs shall be payable in the sum of $2,825.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

c. To the Defendant, John D’Agostino, costs shall be payable in the sum of $2,825.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

d. To the Defendant, James Ireland, costs shall be payable in the sum of $500.00, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

K.E. Cullin, J.

Date: April 9, 2021