Dezzou-Koulomba v. Ward et al, 2026 ONSC 1689

Court File and Parties

CITATION: Dezzou-Koulomba v. Ward et al, 2026 ONSC 1689

COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-64703

DATE: 2026/01/22

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Simon Narcisse Dezzou-Koulombo, Plaintiff

-and-

Helen Ward and Royal Ottawa Health Care Group, Defendant

BEFORE: Justice K.A. Jensen

COUNSEL: Mr. Dezzou-Koulombo, Self-Represented

Pierre Champagne, Corey Willard, Emmanuelle Champagne and Valérie Pilote for the Defendant Helen Ward; Roberto Ghignone and Émilie Roy for the Defendant Royal Ottawa Health Care Group

HEARD: In writing

COSTS DECISION

1This is a decision on the costs of a successful motion by the defendants for dismissal of the action of the plaintiff, Simon Dezzou-Koulombo.

2This matter has a lengthy history that began ten years ago. The plaintiff, who was a patient of Dr. Ward’s at the Royal Ottawa Hospital (the ROH), was held under the psychiatric supervision and jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board between 2007 and 2014 after he was found not criminally responsible of sexual assault in May 2007. In 2015, the plaintiff launched a civil action against the defendants alleging that were it not for their negligent care and failure to assign him a French-speaking psychiatrist, he would not have been diagnosed with schizophrenia and held in psychiatric care.

Legal Principles

3Decisions on costs awards are discretionary and governed by section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, section 131(1), and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (“the Rules”). Some of the relevant factors pursuant to Rule 57.01 include the importance of the issues; the complexity of the proceedings; the experience of counsel and rates charged; conduct tending to shorten or lengthen the trial unnecessarily; whether any step in the proceeding was improper, vexatious or unnecessary; and the amount an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay.

4While decisions with respect to costs are discretionary, Ontario courts have recognized that “the rule of thumb is that costs follow the event unless there is a persuasive reason that they should not”: Sacks v Ross, 2016 ONSC 2498 at para 22, aff’d in 2017 ONCA 773. As a general rule, a successful party is awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis: 394 Lakeshore Oakville Holdings Inc. v. Misek, 2010 ONSC 7238, at para. 12.

5As the successful party, the defendants are presumptively entitled to their costs on a partial indemnity basis. I see no reason for the defendants not to be awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis in this case. The question now is the amount of the costs to be awarded.

Assessment of the Appropriate Amount of Costs

6Dr. Ward seeks costs of the action in the amount of $180,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements. This amount is lower than the lowest of the three scales upon which costs may be awarded, namely partial indemnity costs, which total $215,019.26.

7The Hospital seeks $150,000 inclusive, which is lower than partial indemnity costs, which total $186,908.12. The actual costs incurred by the ROH are $297,148.39 inclusive of tax and disbursements.

8Combined, the amount the plaintiff would owe in costs would be $330,000, which is less than what he would owe if costs were assessed on the basis of partial indemnity.

9Since 2015, there have been significant delays in the proceedings. The plaintiff was, at times, represented by counsel, during which things proceeded fairly well. However, when he was not represented by counsel, the plaintiff was often unresponsive to communications. Even when represented by counsel, there were delays occasioned by counsel’s unavailability, for example, for trial in November 2024. In addition, the plaintiff refused to retain an expert until May 2020, nearly six years after the commencement of the proceeding. The defendants were required to prepare for a summary judgment motion to prompt the delivery of the expert report in May 2020.

10The delays have not only added costs to the proceedings, but they have caused a heavy emotional burden on the defendants, and Dr. Ward in particular. It is not as though the defendants could afford to treat the matter lightly as it languished in the courts. Dr. Ward had to live with the potential consequences of a finding of negligence for years; her professional and personal well-being were very much implicated.

11Both the ROH and Dr. Ward retained extremely competent counsel, as they should have, to defend against the action. There were several stages to the litigation, including the drafting of pleadings and discovery, mediation, post-discovery follow-up and trial preparation in 2023, the latter of which had to be repeated a second time in 2025, due to the adjournment upon the plaintiff’s request. These are labour intensive efforts.

12In reviewing the Bill of Costs provided by the ROH and Dr. Ward, I note that appropriate use was made of junior lawyers, with the assistance at appropriate junctures, of senior counsel. For example, a junior lawyer drafted the pleadings, which were reviewed and finalized by a senior lawyer. The partial indemnity rate for the junior lawyer for the ROH was $180-$206 per hour, while the partial indemnity rate for the senior lawyer was $220-247 per hour. By way of example, the junior lawyers spent 35 hours working on the pleadings and preliminary steps, while the senior lawyer spent only 7 hours. The rates charged by the lawyers were reasonable.

13Similarly, there was appropriate delegation of work efforts between senior and junior lawyers working on Dr. Ward’s file. The lawyer who assumed primary carriage of the file, Mr. Willard, is a 2013 call. When he began working on this matter, he was a junior lawyer, who billed most of the time spent on drafting the pleadings and preparing for and attending examinations for discovery. The hours worked on this file by the two law firms were not excessive, given the length of the proceedings, the difficulty reaching the plaintiff, the lack of proper follow through on the litigation timetable by the plaintiff and the number of delays that were caused by this.

14Given that the plaintiff was represented by counsel at various points in the past ten years, it is reasonable to assume that he would have been informed by counsel of the costs and risks of proceeding with the litigation. Both defendants served the plaintiff with several offers to settle the case all of which would have saved him from bearing the costs of this litigation. Instead, the plaintiff persisted with the litigation right up to the day of trial, when counsel for the defendants presented a motion to dismiss the action, which was granted on November 10, 2025. As a result of this unwise decision not to take advantage of the offers and end the litigation earlier, the plaintiff is now required to accept the consequence of paying costs.

15The defendants have not insisted on obtaining their costs on the elevated basis of substantial indemnity to which they would be entitled after the service of their offers to settle. They have also agreed to less than partial indemnity costs and have excluded the work done by law clerks, students or professionals who were only peripherally involved. In addition, they have not charged for some of their disbursements. The defendants have, in short, significantly reduced their Bills of Cost in recognition of the challenges the plaintiff has faced in life.

16It is within my discretion to further reduce the amount of costs to be paid in light of what I understand to be the difficult financial circumstances of the plaintiff: Cespite v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 2018 ONSC 495, at para. 18. While I am prepared to do so to a limited extent, it must be recognized that the defendants have incurred significant costs, made numerous efforts to resolve the lengthy proceedings and have gone to great efforts to accommodate the plaintiff’s challenges. There does come a point where the consequences of poor choices must be faced, and that time is now. I find that a reasonable amount of costs for the plaintiff to pay is $150,000 to Dr. Ward and $120,000 to the ROH, all inclusive, for a total of $270,000. This is a reduction from the total amount of $330,000 that the defendants had asked for.

The plaintiff is required to pay the ordered amounts to the defendants within thirty days.