The self-represented Plaintiff, Ashraf, commenced an Action against his former employer claiming abuse, harassment and bullying in the workplace. The Defendant, SNC, applied to strike the Statement of Claim or to stay the Action. The Application was dismissed on the basis that the Plaintiff’s Action was statute barred pursuant to the Worker’s Compensation Act (“WCB”). Costs for the Application were awarded to the Defendant. The Plaintiff appealed and sought leave to add a claim for constructive dismissal. The Plaintiff’s Appeal was dismissed. Mahoney J. held that the Defendant was entitled to its Costs for the Appeal under Schedule C, Item 8(1), at Column 5. The Plaintiff was disappointed with the Costs award and came before Mahoney J. to contest the Cost Order. His Lordship considered the Plaintiff’s argument that each party should bear their own Costs because of mixed success in the Application. His Lordship clarified that the Master was correct in striking the Statement of Claim in its entirety pursuant Rule 3.68(1), and that if the Statement of Claim was amended it would be struck in its entirety on the same basis. Mahoney J. stated that success was not mixed at all: the Defendants was entirely successful and should have their Costs as set out in the Order. The Plaintiff further argued that the Costs Order of the Master should be revoked, but Mahoney J. dismissed this argument stating that, having won the Appeal, the Defendants were entitled to their Costs as ordered by the Master. His Lordship observed that the Plaintiff was warned at the start of the Application that if he was unsuccessful in his Application further Costs might be awarded against him. The Plaintiff indicated that he understood and wanted to proceed; therefore, it was appropriate that the Defendants were awarded their Costs for a contested motion under Schedule C, Item 7(1), Column 5.