COURT FILE NO.: CV-10-407254

DATE: 20231212

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: REZA BAHRAMZADEH, Plaintiff

AND:

TORONTO POLICE SERVICES BOARD and OFFICER AMANDA MASON, Defendants

BEFORE: VERMETTE J.

COUNSEL: Reza Bahramzadeh, self-represented David A. Gourlay and Philip Chan, counsel for the Defendants

HEARD: In writing

ENDORSEMENT AS TO COSTS

1On September 5, 2023, I released reasons for judgment (2023 ONSC 5013) dismissing this action.

2The parties were not able to agree on costs. The Defendants delivered costs submissions on September 19, 2023. The Plaintiff did not deliver any responding costs submissions within the time set out in the last paragraph of my reasons for judgment. The Plaintiff was given a second opportunity to deliver costs submissions and was advised that if he did not do so by the new deadline, I would decide the issue of costs without his input. The Plaintiff has not delivered costs submissions.

3This is my decision on costs.

Position of the Defendants

4The Defendants seek costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $25,000.00. They point out that this amount represents a significant reduction of the Defendants’ partial indemnity costs to reflect the Plaintiff’s circumstances and financial wherewithal. The Defendants’ bill of costs reflects costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $207,149.05.

5The Defendants note that they were entirely successful in the action following a six-day trial which included substantial written submissions and sixteen affidavits filed by the Defendants. They state that the proceeding was moderately complex, but that the issues were very important to the individual officers involved in the proceeding given the serious allegations made by the Plaintiff.

6The Defendants submit that the Plaintiff engaged in certain conduct that was improper and needlessly complicated the trial. They give the following examples: (1) the Plaintiff repeatedly raised baseless personal accusations against the Defendants’ counsel; (2) the Plaintiff used the trial to try to challenge his criminal convictions, which was held to be an abuse of the court’s process; and (3) the Plaintiff failed to attend one trial date without providing notice to the Court or counsel. The Defendants also point out that during the trial, the Plaintiff withdrew nine deemed admissions which required the Defendants to prove those facts at trial.

7The Defendants state that they incurred significant costs thrown away when the Plaintiff requested and was granted three last-minute adjournments of the trial in January 2020, March 2021 and March 2022.

8The Defendants argue that the quantum of costs that they are seeking is easily within the parties’ reasonable expectations of costs that might be awarded following an unsuccessful trial. They note that the initial trial estimate was a 20-day trial. The Defendants state that the quantum requested is significantly reduced from the Defendants’ partial indemnity costs to account for the Plaintiff’s circumstances, and they submit that no further reduction is required or appropriate.

Discussion

9I have reviewed the Defendants’ bill of costs. I find that the rates of the Defendants’ lawyers are reasonable and appropriate. I also find that, in light of all the issues and the various steps in this proceeding, the time spent is generally reasonable. Ultimately, however, the number of hours spent by counsel does not matter because the Defendants are seeking only a small fraction of their costs.

10Taking the foregoing into account, as well as the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the reasonable expectations of the parties, I find that the fair and reasonable award of costs in favour of the Defendants is on a partial indemnity basis in the all-inclusive amount of $25,000.00. In my view, this is an amount that the Plaintiff should reasonably have expected to pay in the event that he was unsuccessful in his action.

11The costs are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants within 30 days.

Vermette J.