



COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: T.A.W. v. J.C.L., 2021 ONCA 270

DATE: 20210426

DOCKET: C67517

Fairburn A.C.J.O., van Rensburg
    and Huscroft JJ.A.

BETWEEN

T.A.W.

Plaintiff/Respondent (Appellant)

and

J.C.L.

Defendant/Moving Party (Respondent)

T.A.W., acting in person

Natai Shelsen, for the respondent

Heard: in writing

On appeal from the order of Justice Kevin
    B. Phillips of the Superior Court of Justice, dated September 6, 2019.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1]

This court issued reasons on March 26, 2021, dismissing
    the appeal from an order largely striking out the appellants pleadings as
    disclosing no reasonable cause of action, pursuant to r. 21.01(1)(b) of the
Rules
    of Civil Procedure
, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[2]

As this was an appeal heard in writing, we invited
    the parties to file written submissions on costs. We have now received and reviewed
    those submissions. The respondent seeks costs on a substantial indemnity basis
    in the amount of $12,004.16. While the appellant acknowledges that the
    respondent was successful on appeal, he submits that costs should be awarded on
    a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $8,002.77.

[3]

Given the nature and the circumstances of the
    appeal, the respondent is entitled to her requested substantial indemnity
    costs.

[4]

Costs on a substantial indemnity basis are
    generally awarded only where there has been reprehensible, scandalous or
    outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties:
Young v. Young
,
[1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, at p. 134;
Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd.
,
    2004 SCC 9, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 303, at para. 26. Notably, the motion judge awarded
    costs on a substantial indemnity basis, because the appellants statement of
    claim was offensive and constituted a misogynistic attack on the respondent.
    We agree with that observation.

[5]

The appellant argues that his appeal to this
    court did not include any discriminatory reasoning. He also submits that the
    mere fact of bringing an appeal does not constitute a continuation of the
    conduct below. We do not accept this position.

[6]

Among other things, the appellants continuing
    conduct on appeal includes his reference to the respondent as engaging in a repeated
    pattern of deceitful, manipulative and predatory behaviour in her relationships
    with three other men. Moreover, as the Supreme Court of Canada indicated in
Hamilton
, at para. 26, allegations of
    fraud and dishonesty are serious and potentially very damaging to those accused
    of deception. Here, the appellant attempted to revitalize his claim of
    fraudulent misrepresentation against the respondent, one that constitutes a continuing
    unacceptable attack on her integrity and dignity.

[7]

In these circumstances, it is entirely
    appropriate to hold the appellant liable for costs on a substantial indemnity
    basis:
Hamilton
, at
    para. 26.

[8]

For the reasons above, we order that the
    appellant shall pay to the respondent the requested substantial indemnity costs
    in the amount of $12,004.16.

Fairburn
    A.C.J.O.

K.
    van Rensburg J.A.

Grant
    Huscroft J.A.


