Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Court File No.: CV-19-0089
Date: 2025-02-05

Parties

Between:
Larry Lee, Beaux Arts School of Creative Learning Inc. and Vision Christian School Inc.
Plaintiffs

and
Basil Miller, Oscar Bent, Isaiah Parkinson, Scarborough Church of God, Carnforth Faith Christian Centre of Ontario Inc., Ruth Margel, Frances Namak, Hyman Gliksman, Regina Silverstein, Bella Schwarzberg, Sam Schwarzberg, Harvey Margel and Elle Mortgage Corporation
Defendants

Appearances:

• Larry Lee, self-represented
• Marshall Reinhart, for the Defendants, Basil Miller, Isaiah Parkinson, Scarborough Church of God and Carnforth Faith Christian Centre of Ontario Inc.
• Glenn E. Cohen, for the Defendant, Elle Mortgage Corporation

Heard: In writing

Decision on Costs

Lori de Sa J.:

Background

[1] The Plaintiffs’ action consisted of three distinct claims against three sets of Defendants:
(a) Basil Miller, Oscar Bent, Isaiah Parkinson, Scarborough Church of God (“SCOG”), and Carnforth Faith Christian Centre of Ontario Inc. (“Carnforth”) (collectively, the “Church Defendants”);
(b) Ruth Margel, Frances Namak, Hyman Gliksman, Regina Silverstein, Bella Schwarzberg, Sam Schwarzberg, Harvey Margel (the “Margel Defendants”); and
(c) Elle Mortgage Corporation (“Elle”).

2The Church Defendants and Elle Mortgage Corporation brought a motion seeking an order for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim against them on the basis that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

3I granted summary judgment and dismissed the action as against the moving Defendants (Elle and the Church Defendants).

Costs Sought

4Elle now seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis of $19,246 plus HST, together with disbursements for a total of $23,250. In addition, Elle seeks unpaid costs in relation to the order of Justice Lack from August 15, 2023 in the amount of $13,275.

5Elle maintains that Mr. Lee failed to admit the obvious – that there was no basis for the claim. The lawsuit was frivolous from the outset but required hours of counsel time and court time for pleadings, productions and this motion.

6The Church Defendants also maintain that Mr. Lee’s action was untenable from the outset. Mr. Lee attempted to blame the Church Defendants for his inability to pay his own mortgage. Mr. Lee served the Defendants with thousands of pages of material. To keep costs down, counsel had to be selective in what was reviewed. Despite this, substantial costs were incurred.

7The Church Defendants seek partial indemnity costs in the amount of $11,280.96. This would be in addition to the costs ordered by Justice Lack in the amount of $500.

8Mr. Lee opposes any award being paid to the Defendants. He himself has sought costs of more than $400,000 relating to the action.

Analysis

9Costs awards under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, are highly discretionary.

10Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, sets out the factors to be considered including the amount of costs an unsuccessful party would expect to pay and the complexity of the proceeding. Assessing costs is not simply a matter of arithmetic, where dockets are tabulated. The overarching principle is that the court’s assessment should be fair and reasonable in light of all the circumstances: see Beaver v. Hill, 2018 ONCA 840; Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario; and Moon v. Sher.

11Section 57.01 provides as follows:

57.01 (1) In exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to award costs, the court may consider, in addition to the result in the proceeding and any offer to settle or to contribute made in writing,

(0.a) the principle of indemnity, including, where applicable, the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged and the hours spent by that lawyer;

(0.b) the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;

(a) the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;

(b) the apportionment of liability;

(c) the complexity of the proceeding;

(d) the importance of the issues;

(e) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;

(f) whether any step in the proceeding was,

(i) improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or

(ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;

(g) a party’s denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted;

(h) whether it is appropriate to award any costs or more than one set of costs where a party,

(i) commenced separate proceedings for claims that should have been made in one proceeding, or

(ii) in defending a proceeding separated unnecessarily from another party in the same interest or defended by a different lawyer; and

(i) any other matter relevant to the question of costs. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 57.01 (1); O. Reg. 627/98, s. 6; O. Reg. 42/05, s. 4 (1); O. Reg. 575/07, s. 1.

Application to the Facts of the Case

12Having regard to the nature of the motion and the materials filed, the amount sought by the Defendants is not unreasonable or unwarranted in this case.

13There were extensive materials required to prepare for this Motion. The action mandated that a motion of this nature be brought.

14The Church Defendants are granted costs in the amount of $11,280.96. This would be in addition to the costs ordered by Justice Lack.

15Elle is awarded costs inclusive of disbursements and HST in the amount of a total of $23,250. In addition, Mr. Lee is to pay the unpaid costs in relation to the order of Justice Lack from August 15, 2023 in the amount of $13,275.

Justice de Sa