Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CV-24-00004945-0000 Date: 2025-11-24 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Martin Ross, Applicant And: The Corporation of the City of Markham and The Chief Building Official of the City of Markham, Respondents
Before: The Hon. Mr. Justice J.R. McCarthy
Counsel: A. Bouchelev, for the Applicant A. Rintoul, for the Respondents
Heard: November 14, 2025
Costs Endorsement
Background
1The parties appear before me on the outstanding issue of costs.
2On November 18, 2024, I dismissed the applicant's emergency application with reasons.
3The Respondent City was entirely successful on the matter and is presumptively entitled to costs, which it seeks on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $25,150.41 inclusive of disbursements and HST.
4The Applicant does not dispute the City's entitlement to costs but suggests the more modest amount of $9,000 on a partial indemnity basis.
Analysis
5I find that the amount sought by the Respondent is entirely fit, justified and proportionate.
6In my reasons, I found the application to be nothing more than a collateral attack on the earlier decision of my sister Fraser J, a decision which was upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Those prior decisions had served to confirm the City's rights under an easement agreement in respect of the Applicant's property.
7In dismissing the application, I made findings that the thrust of the application was to enjoin the City from doing precisely what the prior decisions had already authorized it to do. I found the matter subject to the doctrine of res judicata. In addition, I found that there was no serious issue to be tried, that the relief sought would, in any event, serve no practical purpose and finally, that there was no basis for the order sought relating to the Land Registrar.
8The application was unreasonable and ill-advised. It should not have been brought. It had no chance of success. It sought, without benefit of appeal, to essentially do an "end run" around the decision of both this court and the highest court in the province. The application amounted to an abuse of process. It sought to prevent or delay the City from taking steps which were entirely within its rights and which had been specifically authorized by two levels of court. The Applicant sought to re-litigate previously decided facts and issues.
9To make matters worse, the application was brought on short notice with the Applicant serving voluminous materials only a day before the return date and waiting until the minutes preceding the hearing proper to serve his factum. The Respondent was required, not just to digest and sift through hundreds of pages of materials and exhibits, but to prepare weighty responding materials which had to address baseless allegations of bad faith and improper conduct against individuals at the City.
10This type of conduct should not be tolerated by the courts. When, as here, litigation is brought as a collateral attack on previously decided matters or where abuse of process, tactical maneuvering, attempts to embarrass or to frustrate the exercise of clearly defined and authorized rights lie at the heart of the proceeding, a costs sanction should follow.
11In my view, such a sanction is entirely fit and appropriate and should result in the imposition of costs on the higher scale.
12The costs sought by the Respondent are proportionate to both the importance of the matter for the City (which was looking to exercise its legal, authorized and affirmed rights) and the serious nature of the relief sought (injunctive).
13The amount suggested by the Applicant would not advance the principle of indemnity. The City was required to retain and pay competent and expert counsel to respond to the relief being sought. It was reasonable, and could have reasonably been expected, that multiple counsel would be required to properly respond to the application.
Disposition
14For the above reasons, it is ordered that the Applicant Martin Ross pay to the Respondent The City of Markham the sum of $25,150.41 as costs of the application.
J.R. McCarthy J.
Date: November 24, 2025