The Defendants brought an Application for an Order for Costs pursuant to a Decision by the Court that found the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim to be an Apparently Vexatious Application or Proceeding per the document-based Civil Practice Note No. 7, Rule 3.68 procedure. An Order pursuant to that Decision had already been issued, but the Court inadvertently omitted to include the quantum of Costs that should be paid to the Defendants.

Associate Chief Justice Rooke cited Rule 10.29(1) in highlighting that successful parties, here the Defendants, are presumptively entitled to Costs. The Court noted that if the responding party to this Application had been a self-represented litigant who acknowledged that a Court Order had omitted a step ordered by the Court, and not contested the matter, the Court would have not hesitated to exercise its discretion per Rule 10.31 not apply the Rule 10.29(1) presumption, and not impose Costs in favour of the successful party.

The Court found however, that the self-represented Plaintiff in this scenario repeatedly attempted to re-open the litigation against the Defendants and had a litigation approach that was “Orwellian”. In ordering Costs against the Plaintiff, Associate Chief Justice Rooke noted that Rule 10.33(2) allows the Court to order Costs where there has been problematic and abusive conduct. The Court awarded Costs of $5,000 to one Defendant, and $5,000 to the other two Defendants together.