Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FC-18-1726 DATE: 2024/03/15 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
OZCAN ILASLAN Applicant – and – JULIE ALMA POIRIER Respondent
Counsel: Self-represented, for the Applicant Self-represented, for the Respondent
HEARD: In writing
Audet J.
Costs Decision
Costs Decision
1On January 16, 2024, I released my decision following a trial held in December 2023. The issues were many, and purely financial. The respondent was entirely successful, and the applicant’s claims were all dismissed. If the parties were unable to settle the issue of costs, I gave directions for written submissions to be forwarded to my attention.
2Having received those submissions, I order the applicant to pay costs to the respondent in the amount of $9,000, for the following main reasons.
Analysis
3This was a long and protracted litigation which required countless court appearances to get the matter to the trial stage. The respondent was represented for some of these appearances, and for other court appearances she represented herself supported by legal coaching. Her total legal fees incurred during this five-year litigation totalled $34,187. However, she only seeks costs for one of the two trial management conferences held before MacEachern J., as well as for the trial itself, in the total amount of $9,209.55. She was self-represented during these hearings, but she obtained legal advice and coaching to assist her as a self-represented litigant. These costs are very reasonable given the nature of the claims advanced by the applicant (which were complex), and the volume of evidence required to address and defend against them.
4I find that the legal fees in this case were driven up because of the applicant’s unreasonable behavior. During the trial management conferences and during this trial, he was wholly unprepared, disorganized and his evidence fell very short of establishing any of the claims he was advancing. Further, he failed to make any reasonable offers to settle (considering the somewhat unrealistic claims he was advancing).
5On the other hand, the respondent made a very generous offer to settle on June 7, 2022, which was far more advantageous to the applicant than the result he achieved at trial. Based on this alone, the respondent is entitled to her costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the steps taken thereafter to bring this matter to conclusion.
6The applicant asks this Court to consider the fact that he is disabled (although I concluded at trial that he was not and that he was able to engage in full-time work), and that it is because of lack of technical knowledge and language barriers that he failed to provide disclosure and evidence in the most optimum manner. It is important to note that the applicant was told repeatedly by the many judges who presided over conferences in this matter (most importantly MacEachern J. at the trial management stage) that the claims he was advancing, as pled, were unrealistic given the evidence he had so far disclosed. Further, the applicant was represented by various counsel throughout these proceedings.
7Ultimately, considering the circumstances set out above and the extensive support and many warnings he has received from the Court, I am of the view that the applicant cannot unreasonably increase the costs of litigation, forcing the respondent to spend time and money in a four-day trial, only to claim – once unsuccessful – that his inability to properly understand the process over the course of five years should shield him from a cost award.
8The same applies to the respondent’s submission that he is impecunious. While the applicant’s impecuniousness may result in the respondent being unable to collect the cost order I make today, it should not allow an unsuccessful and unreasonable litigant to be relieved from his obligation to pay costs.
9The cost order made by MacEachern J. on June 15, 2022 is not changed by the cost award that I make today and remains payable by the applicant.
Madam Justice Julie Audet Released: March 15, 2024