CITATION: Larabie v. Crickard, 2026 ONSC 3949
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
Parties
BETWEEN:
LYNN LARABIE as executrix of the Last Wills and Testaments of Irene Cecile Larabie and Armand Jean Larabie, deceased, carrying on business as Remi Lake Holiday Bay
Applicants
– and –
CHERYL CRICKARD and LUC BELLEMARE
Respondents
Counsel
Jeremy Wainwright, for the Applicants
Self-Represented
HEARD: In writing
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
Cullin j.
1This matter appears before me to address the issue of costs.
2This was an application which first appeared before me to address the applicability of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006 c.17 (“RTA”) and the Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.L-7 (“CTA”) to the parties’ rental contract. On March 18, 2026, I issued a decision finding that the rental contract did not fall within the exemption provided in s.5 of the RTA, and that it was therefore governed by the RTA and not the CTA. The application was therefore dismissed.
3I invited written submissions from the parties regarding the issue of costs. I have now received submissions from both parties.
4The respondents seek costs of $13,500, inclusive of HST and disbursements. The applicant submits that no costs ought to be awarded to the respondents, or alternatively that costs ought to be awarded in the amount of $2,500, which would effectively set off against a previous costs award against the respondents.
5Pursuant to s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990. c.C.43, the award of costs is solely within the discretion of the Court.
6An award of costs must reflect an amount that is fair and reasonable having regard to the individual circumstances of a case: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario), 2004 CanLII 4579. Costs are intended to indemnify a successful party for the expense of being compelled to seek the assistance of the Court to resolve a dispute: British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71, paras. 19-21.
7The factors to be applied by the Court in exercising its discretion are enumerated in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As a general rule, costs are awarded having regard to the principle of indemnity; that is, they are payable to the successful party by the unsuccessful party. Other factors to be considered by the Court include: (i) the amount claimed and recovered in the proceeding; (ii) the complexity of the proceeding; (iii) the importance of the issues; (iv) the conduct of the parties; and (v) whether any step was improper, vexatious or unnecessary.
8When, as was the case here, a party who may be entitled to costs is self-represented for all or part of a proceeding, the Court must also examine the nature and extent of the work undertaken by that party to participate in the proceeding. The test to be applied was summarized by the Court of Appeal in Girao v. Cunningham, 2021 ONCA 18, at para. 9, which noted that two conditions must be satisfied prior to awarding a self-represented litigant a fee allowance:
a. The litigant must demonstrate that they devoted time and effort to do work that would ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct the litigation; and,
b. The litigant must demonstrate that they incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity to perform that legal work.
9In this case, the respondents were represented by counsel until June 7, 2024, when their counsel was removed from the record. Prior to their removal, counsel had prepared and filed a responding application record and had conducted cross-examinations on the parties’ affidavits. Counsel was also involved in commencing a separate action between the parties arising out of the same transaction underlying this application (Court File No. CV-23-00000011-0000).
10The respondents submit that, while they were represented by counsel, they incurred $7,553 in legal fees. The applicant notes, correctly, that they have not provided substantiating documentation or particularized how those fees were allocated between the two proceedings. The applicant suggests that it is reasonable to allocate approximately $2,500 to the action and the balance to the application. Having regard to the materials filed in each proceeding, I concur that this is a reasonable allocation.
11As self-represented litigants, the respondents submit that they invested, “substantial personal time…including time away from employment and personal obligations”. After the removal of their counsel from the record, the respondents addressed three issues on their own behalf: the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the application; their request to consolidate the application and the action; and the argument of the determinative issue in the application. This required them to review evidence, conduct legal research, respond to procedural motions and objections, and prepare written and oral submissions.
12The applicant notes, correctly, that while the respondents were successful on the determinative issue in the litigation, it cannot be overlooked that they were unsuccessful on the jurisdiction issue, on the consolidation issue, and in their request to file a supplementary affidavit at the final hearing. Costs were awarded against them on the consolidation motion. I agree that an assessment of costs should consider the proceeding as a whole and not only the respondents’ success on the ultimate issue.
13Finally, I would note that there were no Rule 49 offers exchanged by either party. While the respondents submit that they attempted to resolve the matter directly with the applicant prior to the commencement of the litigation, no particulars were provided regarding any pre-litigation offers that were exchanged.
14In my view, this is a matter in which costs should be awarded to the respondents as they were ultimately successful on the application. Having regard to all the circumstances, I find that an award of partial indemnity costs is appropriate. While the applicant was ultimately unsuccessful, she took no steps in the litigation that could be considered improper, vexatious, or unnecessary. In my view, partial indemnity costs also consider the respondents’ mixed success at other stages of the proceeding.
15I am satisfied that, in addition to incurring legal fees in the litigation, the respondents devoted time and effort to work that would ordinarily be done by a lawyer, and that the time spent included time away from remunerative employment. While it would have been preferable to have that time quantified, I find that I am able to arrive an appropriate costs award having regard to the application materials filed and the arguments advanced by the parties.
16I hereby fix the costs of this proceeding, payable by the applicant to the respondents, in the amount of $4,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes. For the sake of clarity, my order of costs dated December 6, 2024, requiring the respondents to pay $2,500 to the applicant remains in force and effect. If the parties elect to offset one costs award against the other, there is a net amount of $1,500 owing by the applicant to the respondents.
Cullin, J.
Released: July 6, 2026
CITATION: Larabie v. Crickard, 2026 ONSC 3949
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
LYNN LARABIE as executrix of the Last Wills and Testaments of Irene Cecile Larabie and Armand Jean Larabie, deceased, carrying on business as Remi Lake Holiday Bay
Applicants
– and –
CHERYL CRICKARD and LUC BELLEMARE
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS
Cullin J.
Released: July 6, 2026