|
Civil Litigation Dicta - Costs - Party Behaviour. Voices of Willowdale Inc. v. City of Toronto
In Voices of Willowdale Inc. v. City of Toronto (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR, this against an OLT decision "to adopt a zoning by-law to permit the construction of a three-story apartment building for people leaving homelessness. The new development would be in addition to the existing four-story building on the property, which houses 600 senior citizens.".
Here the court denies a party (the City of Toronto) costs based on their offensive comments:Costs
[55] The issue of costs is between the VOW and the City of Toronto. No costs are sought by or against the Tribunal.
[56] Counsel agreed on $7,500 as the quantum of costs but disagree on entitlement.
[57] Ordinarily, the City would be presumptively entitled to costs as the successful party on this application for judicial review. VOW argues that even if the City is successful, no costs should be awarded in favour of the City if we find the City’s submissions were inappropriate. I agree.
[58] When offered the opportunity to address the offensive statements during the hearing before this Court, counsel for the City (who was not the counsel who made the offensive submissions before the Tribunal) defended the comments and tried to deflect the issue by blaming the Applicants for advocating against people leaving homelessness.
[59] Counsel for the City represents a public body and serves in a public interest role. Although this Court has previously held that government lawyers are not held to a higher standard under the LSO Rules of Professional Conduct, government lawyers are accountable to the public the way justice is administered. The City must maintain public confidence in the system, which includes respecting diversity, acting with integrity and proceeding with objectivity. The offensive submissions made by counsel for the City were inconsistent with its role as counsel for a public body. Given the conduct of the City in the hearing before this Court and below, I find it is appropriate not to award the City costs on this judicial review application.
|
