Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
RE: GARY CURTIS; TANYA REBELLO, Plaintiffs
AND:
TORONTO POLICE SERVICE BOARD, Defendant
BEFORE: Callaghan J.
COUNSEL: Gary Curtis, self-represented Plaintiff
Matthew Cornett, for the Defendant
HEARD: July 10, 2026
ENDORSEMENT
1Mr. Curtis seeks to contest the garnishment of his bank account for costs awarded by this Court and the Court of Appeal. He submits that the court can address his concerns at this case conference. If needed, he requests an urgent date for the hearing of a motion.
2Mr. Curtis and Ms. Rebello have been involved in protracted litigation with the Toronto Police Service (TPS). He brought an application which was struck as an abuse of process as it was duplicative of ongoing proceedings. He was ordered to pay costs. He appealed that ruling but did not proceed with the appeal. A single judge of the Court of Appeal ordered that Mr. Curtis and Ms. Rebello pay $19,365.37 in respect of the appeal. Mr. Curtis sought a panel review of the motion judge’s order that they pay the costs of their abandoned appeal. That review was unsuccessful and a further $9,000 of costs was ordered to be paid. He has appealed that order to the Supreme Court of Canada. The parties await a decision on leave.
3In the meanwhile, he has not paid the costs and has avoided any debtor examinations. In response, the TPS sought and obtained notices of garnishments which are being acted upon by the Bank of Montreal.
4Mr. Curtis claims that the cost orders were improperly obtained and that the garnishments were also improperly obtained. Mr. Curtis further asserts that there is no reason for this garnishment to occur pending the decision on the leave application.
5There is no automatic stay of a cost award pending an appeal: Ford v. Windsor (City), 2018 ONCA 992, at para 1. The jurisdiction to grant a stay rests with the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal. Such a stay has its own test which would be applied if a stay was requested: Supreme Court Act, RSC 1985, c S-26, s 65.1, Ting (Re), 2019 ONCA 768, at para. 15.
6In my view, the arguments regarding the validity of the cost awards amounts to a collateral attack on the order under appeal. Any issue regarding the validity of the cost orders is not a matter for this Court. To the extent relief is being sought on the enforcement of the order pending the appeal, that is an issue to be addressed pursuant to s. 65 of the Supreme Court Act.
7I pause to note that when I raised that a stay order would be required and that this Court has no jurisdiction to do so, it was clear that Mr. Curtis was aware of this. Undoubtedly, he was aware of this as his co-applicant in the underlying litigation that led to the cost orders, Ms. Rebello, was told exactly this in another proceeding: Rebello v. Del Property Management et al., 2024 ONSC 573 at para. 37.
8On the validity of the requisition of the notice of garnishment, I see no merit in Mr. Curtis’ argument. His arguments are intended to forestall the legitimate enforcement of the cost orders which have not been stayed. He seeks refuge in technicalities which are unfounded.
9First, Mr. Curtis argues that the notice is defective because it has both the Superior Court file number and a Court of Appeal file number. He states that the orders giving rise to the garnishment must be registered with the Court of Appeal file number. Rule 60.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure addresses the issuance of the notice of garnishment by the registrar. The notice is to be issued using Form 60H. There is no specific requirement as to which file number is to be used. In any event, the Rules provide that forms may be varied as the circumstances require; rule 1.06(1). The registrar used the Superior Court file number with reference to the Court of Appeal file number. I see no issue with the format chosen by the registrar. Had I seen an issue with the file number used on the form, I would have corrected it as an irregularity: rule 2.01.
10Mr. Curtis takes issue that the bank received personal service of the notice some ten days before he did. The notice of garnishment was mailed to Mr. Curtis, not personally served. The debtor is permitted to serve a notice of garnishment by mail: rule 60.08(8). I see no issue with the means of service and the disparity in service dates does not invalidate the garnishment.
11It was further argued that the affidavit of service of the garnishment was not filed in the court file. There is no requirement to do so. The affidavit of service is merely a means of proof: rule 16.09(1). In any event, at my request, counsel for the defendant filed the affidavits of service.
12The request to set a date for a motion is denied as the proposed motion has no merit.
13Finally, the defendant seeks its costs. Mr. Curtis states that as this was a case conference no costs can be issued. The court has jurisdiction to order costs incidental to any “step in a proceeding”: s. 131, Courts of Justice Act. The case conference is such a step and the court therefore has the power to issue costs at a case conference.
14The defendant seeks substantial indemnity costs of $3,305.25. It states that this is yet another abusive tactic by Mr. Curtis. It states that its client ought not to bear the cost of the continued barrage of motions. There is certainly a long list of cases that have been brought by Mr. Curtis. Justice Paciocco of the Court of Appeal commented in the very matter giving rise to one of cost decisions that Mr. Curtis and Ms. Rebello have a “history of abusing the litigation system”: Curtis v. Toronto Police Service Board, 2025 ONCA 502, at para. 3; aff’d Curtis v. Toronto Police Service Board, 2025 ONCA 896.
15Mr. Curtis states that the defendant is not entitled to any costs as he is an in-house counsel. He made many unfounded allegations against defence counsel during his submissions. The allegations do not warrant further comment. He complains about the time claimed and the hourly rates. This appears to be a complete repeat of the argument before Justice Paciocco in Curtis v. Toronto Police Service Board, 2025 ONCA 502 which was rejected.
16Given the history of this litigation and the lack of merit in the argument, I conclude that substantial indemnity costs are appropriate. Those who have a “history of abusing the litigation system” not only impose a heavy burden on those who unfortunately need to respond, but it taxes our scarce judicial resources. In this case, Mr. Curtis sought an urgent hearing. In response, this Court convened this case conference on an urgent basis. The matter had no merit. Indeed, it was apparent rather quickly that Mr. Curtis’ substantive complaints were in fact tantamount to asking for a stay of the order under appeal. If a stay was what was required, Mr. Curtis was aware that this was not the venue. The remaining arguments were last ditch attempts at avoid accountability for the cost orders by way of garnishment. Dissuading meritless litigation is a proper objective of substantial indemnity cost awards and costs are one of the few tools that the court has to dissuade parties: Curtis v. McCague Borlack LLP, 2024 ONCA 729, at para. 19. This concern is enhanced given the past record of Mr. Curtis, and the very clear finding of Justice Paciocco that this is a pattern.
17As to the quantum, I have reviewed the bill of costs. I see no issue with either the time or the rates used. The amount is reasonable and well within what an opposing party could expect to pay: Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 587, at para. 60.
18Mr. Curtis shall pay costs to the defendant of $3,305.25 forthwith.
Callaghan J.