Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

Home / About / Democracy, Law and Duty / Something Big / Testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers

Simon's Favourite Charity -
Little Friends Lefkada (Greece)
Cat and Dog Rescue


TOPICS


Civil Litigation Dicta - Costs - Salaried Counsel

. Rebello v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services)

In Rebello v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of an earlier dismissal "of her lawsuit alleging that the Ontario Provincial Police breached common law and statutory duties they owed to her by failing to meaningfully investigate complaints".

Here the court notes that costs may be awarded for salaried Crown counsel:
[15] Finally, the appellant argues that the motion judge erred in ordering her to pay $24,247.69 in costs because she is a self-represented litigant and the amount is, in her view, exorbitant.

[16] Costs are a matter of the court’s discretion pursuant to s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 and r. 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194. This court will not intervene unless costs were fixed and awarded based on an error of principle or the amount is plainly wrong: Galganov v. Russell (Township), 2012 ONCA 410, at para. 23.

[17] The motion judge considered the outlines submitted by the parties and awarded the respondent its costs on a partial indemnity scale. Contrary to the appellant’s submissions, a self-represented litigant is not exempt from costs nor is it inappropriate for a court to order costs for work done by salaried Crown counsel: CJA, s. 131(2); Solicitor’s Act, RSO 1990, c. S.15; Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2012 ONSC 1804, aff’d 2013 ONCA 353. The costs awarded by the motion judge were reasonable given the volume of pleadings and evidence, lengthy cross-examinations, the causes of action asserted by the appellant, and the number of case management attendances required. This ground of appeal also fails.



CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 01-10-24
By: admin