BARRETTE v WEVERS

The Court ruled on Costs following the dismissal of the self-represented Plaintiff's claim.

Justice Mah confirmed that, as the successful party, the Defendants were presumptively entitled to Costs under Rule 10.29. The Court cited Rule 10.31 providing that Costs are discretionary and noted the factors to be considered in Rule 10.33.

Justice Mah addressed the Defendants in two groups (the "Group A Defendants" and "Group B Defendants"). For the Group A Defendants, the Court awarded Costs in accordance with the Court of Justice Tariff and Schedule C, including double Costs after they had provided Calderbank letters to the Plaintiff. Given the Calderbank letters, Justice Mah said that double Costs were appropriate to promote the objectives of deterring unwarranted litigation and encouraging reasonable settlement.

The Group B Defendants claimed $54,094 in solicitor-client Costs on the basis that the Plaintiff had brought groundless allegations of fraud against them. Justice Mah confirmed that such allegations can attract solicitor-client Costs but awarded a lower sum of $26,000 all-inclusive. The Court said that while the fraud allegations had no circumstantial plausibility, they did not reach the most egregious level of making intentionally false allegations. Further, the Costs award must be proportional and here, the Plaintiff's civil claim was for damages of only $50,000. Finally, Justice Mah considered that the Plaintiff had not followed the Court's instructions regarding the form of Costs submissions.

Additionally, Justice Mah awarded $2,000 to the Group A Defendants and $1,000 to the Group B Defendants to account for the Plaintiff's reliance on fake authorities in his Brief.