Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-332
DATE: 2022/10/17
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Sule Kisac, a woman, Claimant
AND:
Derrick Cheung, a man, acting as President and Chief Executive Officer of Defence Construction Canada (1951), Defendant
BEFORE: Regional Senior Justice Calum MacLeod
COUNSEL: Russell MacCrimmon, for the Defendant (Moving Party)
Sule Kisac, representing herself, Plaintiff (Responding Party)
HEARD: Costs submissions in writing
COSTS AWARD
[1] On July 5, 2022, I released my decision granting judgment to the defendant dismissing the claim against him brought by Sule Kisac, the plaintiff. In summary, I found that although Ms. Kisac may have or may have had a remedy against her employer (Defence Construction Canada), the claim as pleaded did not disclose a cause of action against Mr. Cheung. (See 2022 ONSC 3986). I have now received written costs submissions.
[2] The defendant seeks costs of $9,618.18 comprised of partial indemnity fees of $8,488.56, a partial indemnity fee for preparation of costs submissions in the amount of $264.00 and disbursements of $865.62.
[3] In response, the plaintiff continues to make “OPCA arguments” which are (needless to say) nonsensical in the context of a legal proceeding before the courts of Ontario. As discussed in the reasons for judgment, this court action was a legal proceeding initiated before this court by the plaintiff under Ontario law and pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure which govern civil proceedings in this province. The plaintiff’s affidavit, sworn in opposition to the motion, declares that she has many years experience in contract administration for a major Canadian crown corporation. She appears to be an educated person familiar with the legal structure under which the law of this country and this province is administered. It is only in response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, that the plaintiff introduced her own version of the law and attempted to invoke meaningless pseudo legal phrases and formulas.
[4] Rather than discussing the amount of the costs and the factors which the court should consider in making a costs award, the plaintiff continues this pattern. At the argument of the motion, the plaintiff did not challenge the jurisdiction of the court. Rather, she asked the court to consider the matter carefully after reading all of her material. Now, however, she asserts that in making the decision to dismiss her claim, the court “trespassed my property by way of robbery” and delayed her “right to justice by interfering with my right of my claim to move under common law court of record and trial by jury”. She goes on to assert that neither I sitting as a judge, nor the Rules of Civil Procedure have any jurisdiction over her. The plaintiff’s written submissions are of no assistance to the court in determining a fair costs award.
[5] The ultimate purpose of costs awards is to do justice between the parties. Individual citizens have the right to launch proceedings before the courts and the corresponding obligation to indemnify those against whom they bring lawsuits if the litigation proves to be without merit. The general principle governing costs awards is that the costs should be a reasonable amount for the losing party to pay, having regard to all of the factors set out in Rule 57.01.
[6] The cost of defending against this litigation including the motion to dismiss it at a preliminary stage exceeded $14,000.00 and involved 34 hours of docketed time. Some of that time was expended in an ultimately fruitless attempt to engage the plaintiff by encouraging her to repackage her claim and to pursue the correct defendant. I do not doubt that the time certified by defence counsel in his costs outline was actually required although it has not been broken down by detailed docket entries. The time expended and the costs actually incurred are one of the factors to be considered in determining a reasonable costs award. They are not determinative.
[7] The defendant could have requested elevated costs pursuant to subrules 57.01 (1) (e) and (f) but has not done so. This is to the credit of the defendant. I also note that in the plaintiff’s cost submissions she values her own time very highly. She suggests in a “fee schedule” that if she appears in court herself voluntarily, she should be entitled to $10,000 per hour.
[8] No one has suggested that the plaintiff lacks mental capacity to represent herself or is suffering from any mental disability. This, as I have said, is the plaintiff’s litigation. Now that it has been dismissed, the defendant is entitled to costs.
[9] Nevertheless, in an effort to be scrupulously fair, and despite the fact that the amount sought in costs is by no means extreme for the steps that had to be taken, I am reducing the $9,618.18 which is requested by a modest amount. The costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant are fixed at $7,000.00 on a partial indemnity scale. To this will be added the disbursements of $264.00.
[10] In conclusion, the plaintiff shall be liable for $7,264.00 in costs and judgment may issue accordingly.
Mr. Justice C. MacLeod
Date: October 17, 2022
COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-332
DATE: 2022/10/17
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Sule Kisac, a woman, Claimant
AND:
Derrick Cheung, a man, acting as President and Chief Executive Officer of Defence Construction Canada (1951), Defendant
BEFORE: Regional Senior Justice Calum MacLeod
COUNSEL: Russell MacCrimmon, for the Defendant (Moving Party)
Sule Kisac, representing herself, Plaintiff
(Responding Party)
COSTS AWARD
Regional Senior Justice C. MacLeod
Released: October 17, 2022