Oommen v Capital Regional Housing Corporation, 2016 ABQB 283

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Oommen v Capital Regional Housing Corporation, 2016 ABQB 283 Date: 20160517 Docket: 0903 03854 Registry: Edmonton Between: Paul Oommen Plaintiff - and - Capital Regional Housing Corporation and Jeff Doe Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice J.B. Veit _______________________________________________________

Summary [ 1 ] Capital Regional Housing Corporation cites the plaintiff Paul Oommen in contempt for failure to comply with the October 21, 2015 order of Master Schlosser. The applicant asks for: a declaration of civil contempt; a $5,000.00 fine; an order directing that the order of the Master be complied with by a specific date; an order that, if the plaintiff fails to provide the required documentation as and when required, the plaintiff’s claim will be struck; and, solicitor-client costs. [ 2 ] In these proceedings which he commenced in 2007, Mr.

Oommen is claiming that, as a result of CRHC’s failure to maintain the security of Mr. Oommen’s suite at Matheson Manor and failure to cooperate with the police investigation into the plaintiff’s complaints, he suffered property losses, personal injuries and psychological injuries. [ 3 ] At the conclusion of a hearing during which Mr. Oommen represented himself, the Master ordered Mr. Oommen to provide to CRHC: a copy of Mr. Oommen’s Alberta Statement of Benefits Paid; a prescription printout from a named pharmacy from September 18, 2006 to October 21, 2015; copies of all the emails Mr.

Oommen received from Jeff Doe, consisting of approximately 700 emails; a

copy of a letter written by Mr. Oommen to Dr. Taylor requesting a complete copy of Dr. Taylor’s chart; a copy of a letter written to Dr. Fernandes, requesting a complete copy of Dr. Taylor’s chart; a copy of a letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons requesting the identity and contact information for anyone who has taken over the practice of Dr. Yaltho; as a result of the previous inquiry, a copy of a letter written to the identified person requesting a complete copy of Mr. Oommen’s file with Dr. Yaltho; and, a copy of a letter to the custodian of the practice of law of Shawn Beaver requesting a copy of the records listed within

Schedule 1 of Mr. Oommen’s Affidavit of Records and all answers to undertakings arising from Mr. Oommen’s questioning. [ 4 ] At both this time and at the time of the hearing before the Master, Mr. Oommen is self-represented. [ 5 ] Grudgingly, during the course of the hearing before this court, Mr. Oommen acknowledged that he had not complied with the Master’s order. [ 6 ] Mr. Oommen has failed, both facially and substantively, to comply with this court’s October 21, 2015 order. The order is clear and unambiguous; Mr. Oommen himself approved the form of the order. Mr.

Oommen is therefore in contempt of this court [ 7 ] As to the appropriate penalty for his contempt, Mr. Oommen argues that no penalty should be imposed on him because: CHRC was at fault for not advising Mr. Oommen that his responses did not comply with the order in question; he did not understand parts of the order; and, he has, in substance, complied with the order. [ 8 ] Mr. Oommen is fined $1,000.00 for his contempt. Based on the only information available to the court, which suggests that Mr.

Oommen has limited means, the fine should be greater than the cost of a contested hearing, but should not be as great as would be appropriate if the plaintiff were a man of means. Also, because Mr. Oommen apparently has limited means and because an application for

summary judgment in favour of the defence has previously been denied by the Master, the usual requirement that fines and costs be paid before any new step can be taken in the proceedings is not appropriate here. The fine will be paid by Mr. Oommen to CHRC in any event of the cause, but is only required to be paid or accounted for at the conclusion of the proceedings. [ 9 ] As Mr. Oommen is in continuing contempt, Mr. Oommen must comply with paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the October 21, 2015 order by June 17, 2016, failing which the matter will be set down peremptorily for an application to strike Mr.

Oommen’s statement of claim. [ 10 ] A stay of these proceedings is ordered until Mr. Oommen complies with the Master’s order. [ 11 ] CRHC shall have its costs of this application, on an accelerated basis but not on a solicitor and his own client basis. The contempt application itself was straightforward: the breaches of the order were obvious, the law is clear, and the respondent is a self- represented litigant who would not be expected to present a legal argument in defence.

Also, because some of the time spent in preparing for this application will doubtless be used by the defendant in the action itself; the time spent reviewing the material that was actually presented by Mr. Oommen should not all be linked to the costs of this application. As indicated above in respect of the fine, the costs of this application will be paid or accounted for at the conclusion of the proceedings.

Cases and authority cited [ 12 ] By the applicant : Mayflower Transit Inc. v Bedwell Management Systems Inc . 2003 FC 943 . [ 13 ] By the court : Crawford v Crawford 2016 ONSC 2144 ; McDonald Estate (Re) 2012 ABQB 704 ; Pronesti v. 1309395 Ontario Ltd . 2015 ONSC 1139 . 1. Background [ 14 ] Mr. Oommen commenced this action in March, 2008. He alleges property losses and personal injuries, including psychological injuries, as a result of an alleged theft in March 2007 by a co-tenant or employee of Matheson Manor.

He alleges that Capital Regional Housing Corporation failed to take adequate steps to maintain the security of Matheson Manor and that CRHC failed or refused to cooperate with the police investigation into his complaints. [ 15 ] On October 21, 2015, the parties appeared before Master Schlosser on CRHC’s application to compel Mr. Oommen to provide undertakings from a questioning for discovery held in 2013 and to compel the production of his records from the affidavit of records he had filed in 2011. [ 16 ] During the course of the hearing, Master Schlosser told Mr.

Oommen that he at least had to make a request for the identified materials. Mr. Oommen responded: Right. Okay. In that case, Sir, I am going to refuse the refused undertakings because – Master: No, . . . ., you have already done that, and I am overruling you, . . . because I have looked at the refusals, and they are not justified. . . . if you are claiming personal injury-type damages, you saw a doctor (indiscernible) and the doctor has some record of what your personal status was at that time, that is relevant and producible in terms of the damages.

And, I mean, he needs the opportunity to be able to say you were just fine then, you didn’t suffer any injury at all. Oommen: I’m not refusing that, Sir. . . . they’re not letting you see the whole thing, saying that 25 to 27 is refused. They are not medical records. They’re silly, and there is no reasonable argument he can come up with to produce those records. Let him come up with those records one by one. Master: I disagree. I think that the refusals were not reasonable. And it appears to me that those records that they were asking for

are relevant and material and would ordinarily be producible in a personal injury lawsuit. And I am going to require that you make the request to those doctors for those records. Oommen: This is the part the lawyer has to, you know, talk to them prior to the trial, and that is why I need the lawyer. To deal with them. . . . Master: Okay. But if you wanted a lawyer to argue that part of it for you Oommen: Yes Master: you could have retained one as Master Schulz directed you to do and you could have showed up with that lawyer today. . . . Master: Number 25 is Dr. Fernandes, and . . . you said that you saw Dr.

Fernandes, who is a GP, about a heart condition, and that may have some bearing on, you know, whether you suffered any injuries as a result of the things you are suing for. . . . I mean, it would be one thing if Dr. Fernandes was an expert retained by you for the purposes of the lawsuit, be he isn’t. Dr. Fernandes is just a GP that you saw along the way, and that’s part of your medical history and part of establishing whether or not you are entitled to any damages. . . . Master: Let’s imagine that he writes to Dr. Fernandes tomorrow. Neal: Right. Master: Dr.

Fernandes says, here’s my chart, and gets it before Halloween. Neal: Right. . . . Master But in the event that he actually gets the file or gets a response, then he can send that over. [ 17 ] During the course of the hearing before the Master, Mr. Oommen requested that the form of order counsel for CRHC prepared should be sent to him for approval prior to being returned to the Master for signature; the Master agreed. [ 18 ] Mr. Oommen did not produce a Statement of Benefits Paid. Mr. Oommen produced approximately 535 emails which he alleges are from Jeff Doe. Mr.

Oommen produced records from his pharmacy showing medications that were purchased over most, but not all, of the period requested. Mr. Oommen did not write to: Dr. Taylor, Dr. Fernandes, the College of Physicians and Surgeons; or to the custodian of the Beaver practice. [ 19 ] A "To Whom it May Concern" letter, from Dr. Fernandes, dated July 25, 2014, was produced in which Dr. Fernandes states that Mr. Oommen is a patient of his and has been under his care for many years, that Mr. Oommen has had several complex surgeries and angioplasties in 2005 for coronary artery disease and that he is on numerous medications.

Dr. Fernandes also states that he is closing his practice on July 31, 2014. 2. Mr. Oommen is in contempt

a) Mr. Oommen failed to do what he was required to do by court order [ 20 ] During the course of the hearing before this court, Mr. Oommen reluctantly agreed that he had failed to do what Master Schlosser ordered him to do. [ 21 ] Nevertheless, Mr. Oommen strenuously asserted that he had provided what he understood to be the substance of the order which he understood to be the substance of the undertakings which had been refused.

b) Mr. Omen failed to comply with the spirit of the court order [ 22 ] Not only did Mr. Oommen fail to do what the order facially required him to do, he failed to substantively comply with the requirements of the order. Mr. Oommen has not understood that the objective of the Master’s order was not to duplicate any material which Mr. Oommen may have provided to one of his lawyers in the past, but rather to provide answers to CRHC’s legitimate requests for information. In an effort to make Mr.

Oommen’s obligations very clear to him, the Master issued an order that was not only simple and clear, but one with which it was easy for Mr. Oommen to comply. [ 23 ] As the Master explained to Mr. Oommen, because Mr. Oommen claims for injuries, he is required to provide his own health information; providing some of the information is not an adequate response.

i) Statement of Benefits Paid [ 24 ] Mr. Oommen was required to provide an Alberta Statement of Benefits Paid. This is a standardized form of report which is available to Albertans which sets out the benefits which the individual has received from government health care sources. Mr. Oommen did not provide the form. At the contempt hearing, Mr. Oommen states that he did not understand what a Statement of Benefits was.

[ 25 ] As a self-represented litigant, Mr. Oommen has been personally involved in this litigation for most of the 9 years during which his claim has been proceeding. I am of the view that I can fairly assume that Mr. Oommen has been told, repeatedly, during the course of his self-representation that if he does not understand some direction, instruction or order, he should ask for clarification. Mr. Oommen himself insisted on approving the form of order prepared as a result of the hearing before the Master. The court is entitled to assume that, having received a proposed form of order from CRHC, Mr.

Oommen would inform CRHC that he did not understand the first thing he was ordered to do. Mr. Oommen did not ask for clarification of the order; he simply did not do what he was required to do. ii) Prescription printout from September 18, 2006 to October 21, 2015 [ 26 ] Mr. Oommen points to a thick stack of printouts from his pharmacy as evidence of his compliance with the order. The reality is that the printouts do not cover the time period identified.

It may be that, when full disclosure is made, it will be apparent that the missing periods are not particularly relevant because the pattern of consumption during the unreported period will exactly mirror the pattern during the reported period. However, until full disclosure is made that analysis cannot be done. iii) Copies of all emails received from Jeff Doe [ 27 ] Mr. Oommen acknowledges that, although he had claimed to have received over 700 messages from Jeff Doe, he produced only approximately 550 of them. Mr.

Oommen states that he provided to CRHC all of the emails which he had retained. [ 28 ] Without questioning whether Mr. Oommen has intentionally withheld any of the required emails, CRHC accepts that Mr. Oommen has adequately complied with this part of the order. CRHC states that all of the emails produced are spam-type emails which do not appear to have been sent by one individual and none of which appear to have been individually directed to Mr. Oommen. iv) Copy of letter to Dr. Taylor requesting Dr. Taylor’s complete chart [ 29 ] Mr.

Oommen states, and CRCH acknowledges, that he has provided some information from Dr. Taylor. The difficulty is, of course, that Mr. Oommen has not requested Dr. Taylor’s complete chart and the information provided from Dr. Taylor shows on the face of it that it is not a complete chart.

v) Copy of letter to Dr. Fernandes requesting Dr. Taylor’s complete chart [ 30 ] Mr. Oommen did not write to Dr. Fernandes to ask him for a complete copy of Dr. Taylor’s chart. [ 31 ] In fact, however, what Mr. Oommen was substantively required to do was to write to Dr. Fernandes to ask Dr. Fernandes for his complete chart; this is made crystal clear in the above extract from the Master’s hearing. The reference in the order to Dr. Taylor in conjunction with Dr. Fernandes was merely a slip; Mr. Oommen should have known what the fifth requirement of the order really was. Indeed, by providing a letter from Dr.

Fernandes, Mr. Oommen signals that he knew exactly what he was supposed to ask Dr. Fernandes. However, the letter from Dr. Fernandes does not substantively respond to the requirement in the order because, just like the Taylor material, it shows on the face of it that it is not a complete chart. vi) Copy of letter to College asking if anyone took over Dr. Yaltho’s practice [ 32 ] Mr. Oommen acknowledges that he did not write to the College. He states that he spoke to the College and asked the question but that the only response he got was a laugh. [ 33 ] It may be that no one took over Dr.

Yaltho’s practice, or that the College will not tell Mr. Oommen if someone has or has not taken over that practice. CHRC is not, however, able to make full answer and defence to Mr. Oommen’s claim until it has received the required information. vii) Copy of letter to identified person asking for Dr. Yaltho’s complete chart [ 34 ] Since Mr. Oommen did not write to the College, he could not, of course, write to any person identified by the College to ask for production of Dr. Yaltho’s chart. CHRC is left with an inability to answer Mr.

Oommen’s claim that he suffered personal injuries as a result of what he alleges is CHRC’s wrongful conduct. viii) Copy of letter to custodian of the Beaver law practice [ 35 ] As can be seen from the hearing before the Master, the latter was aware that Mr. Oommen had had some unsuccessful communication with the custodian of Mr. Beaver’s practice prior to the Master’s hearing. That is presumably why he ordered Mr. Oommen to do something that was very precise in order to try to avoid the delay and expense of duplication. [ 36 ] In

summary, the evidence clearly establishes that, without reasonable excuse, Mr. Oommen failed, both facially and substantively, with the Master’s order. 3. What is the appropriate penalty or sanction for Mr. Oommen’s contempt?

a) General principles [ 37 ] The recent Crawford decision in Ontario usefully sets out some general principles concerning the sanctioning of civil contempt. Although the decision deals specifically with family law proceedings, the principles apply to all areas of civil litigation. 192 In Cassidy v. Cassidy, 2010 ONSC 2707 , [2010] O.J. No. 1927, the Court set out the following regarding sentencing in contempt proceedings: The sanction imposed upon a finding of contempt must be significant and of such consequence as to ensure the administration of justice

is not brought into disrepute. Sentencing in contempt proceedings, particular in family law proceedings, should be comprised of twocomponents. It should be restorative to the victim of the contempt and punitive to the contemnor. To accomplish the former requires thesentence to correlate to the conduct that produces the contempt and to accomplish the latter requires the sentence not to reflect a markeddeparture from those imposed in like circumstances. In determining an appropriate sentence in the present case, considerations includethe following: (

a) The available sentences: For practical purposes the list of available penalties for civil contempt is a short one, consisting of: nopenalty (where the contempt has been purged), a suspended sentence (perhaps conditional upon some act or event occurring), a fine, orincarceration. (

b) The proportionality of the sentence to the wrongdoing: A sentence, to be fit, must be proportionate to the gravity of the wrongdoing.Although a finding of contempt carries with it the recognition that the conduct was deliberate and wilful, contempt can reflect degrees ofwrongdoing. All instances of contempt are serious, but some are more serious than others. (

c) The similarity of sentences in like circumstances: A sentence should not reflect a marked departure from those imposed in likecircumstances. Unfortunately, in the area of sentencing for contempt the reported and unreported decisions are scarce. Those that doexist are heavily fact-driven. While each case turns on its own facts, the general principles applied by the court are the same and thepenalties differ, depending on the facts. (

d) The presence of mitigating factors: An admission of the facts by the contemnor may constitute a mitigating factor. (

e) The presence of aggravating factors: That the contemnor's conduct was flagrant and continued over a long period were aggravatingfactors. (

f) Deterrence: The primary purpose of sentencing in contempt proceedings, apart from coercing compliance, is deterrence: both generaland specific. The punishment for contempt should serve as a disincentive to those who might be included to breach court orders. (

g) The reasonableness of a fine: Where civil contempt is concerned, the ability to pay a fine is a crucial consideration in determining itssize. A small fine for a wealthy person is not a punishment. Deterrence is not achieved unless fines are imposed in meaningful amounts.A fine must be a punishment, not a nuisance. Where a fine is imposed it must, in all of the circumstances, reflect the seriousness of thecontempt. (

h) The reasonableness of incarceration: Incarceration is reasonable only where no other less restrictive sanction is appropriate. It isappropriate in cases where there have been multiple breaches of court orders. For any motion necessitated by contempt, the contemnor must pay the solicitor and client costs of the moving party. 193 In Boucher v. Kennedy, [1998] O.J. No. 1612 (C.J.) the following factors were considered when determining the appropriatesanctions: (

a) whether the contemnor had admitted the breach; (

b) whether the contemnor has demonstrated a full acceptance of the paramountcy of the rule of law, by tendering a formal apology tothe Court; (

c) whether the breach was a single act or part of an ongoing pattern of conduct in which there were repeated breaches; (

d) whether the breach occurred with the full knowledge and understanding of the contemnor that it was a breach rather than as a resultof mistake or misunderstanding; (

e) the extent to which the conduct of the contemnor displayed defiance; (

f) whether the Order was a private one, affecting only the parties to the suit or whether some public benefit lay at the root of the Order; (

g) the need for specific and general deterrence; and the ability of the contemnor to pay. [38] In our own province, in McDonald Estate (Re), Gates J. has summarized the principles in this way: 55 The Respondent refers to Michael v. Lafrentz, 1998 ABCA 231 , [1998] A.J. No. 1489, 1998 CarswellAlta 657 (CA) atparas. 31 and 32 and to Dreco Energy Services Ltd. v. Wenzel, [2005] A.J. No. 662, 2005 CarswellAlta 739 (CA) at para. 12 for this listof factors to be taken into consideration in determining the penalty for contempt: 1.

Whether there was deliberate defiance of a Court order or whether there was an inadvertent failure to comply with the Court order; 2. The role of legal counsel; 3. Where there has been a failure to give discovery, the object of the exercise is more to secure the discovery rather than to punish; 4. Attempts to purge contempt or to apologize are relevant; 5. The entire context in the history of the litigation; 6. The amount of reasonable thrown-away costs properly incurred; 7. The nature of the contempt

8. The degree of culpability of the contemnor.

b) Application of the general principles to the facts here [ 39 ] Mr. Oommen knew what he had to do pursuant to the court order: he was personally present at the hearing before the Master and personally approved the form of order made as a result of that hearing. [ 40 ] Nonetheless, Mr. Oommen suggests that no penalty should be imposed because CHRC should have advised him soon after the expiry of the deadline imposed by the Master that he had not complied with the Master’s order. This suggestion must be rejected. First, there is no obligation in law on a party to take the steps suggested by Mr. Oommen.

Second, in the circumstances here, given the history of Mr. Oommen’s unwillingness to comply with legitimate requests for disclosure, it could reasonably have been assumed by CHRC that Mr. Oommen would merely argue with them, much as he has done on this hearing, that he has in fact complied with the order. [ 41 ] It goes without saying that Mr. Oommen’s conduct was deliberate and wilful. Moreover, it is apparent from Mr. Oommen’s position at the Master’s hearing that, from the outset, Mr. Oommen felt that CRHC’s requests for information were inappropriate. Far from apologizing for his conduct, Mr.

Oommen continues to feel that he should not be required to accommodate CHRC’s requests. Therefore, this is a situation in which it is appropriate to impose sanctions against Mr. Oommen to deal with his contempt. [ 42 ] Mr. Oommen’s failure to abide by a clear order is grave: after nearly a decade, these proceedings are almost ready for trial. Mr. Oommen’s failure to comply with the court order puts the likelihood of a trial being held as scheduled in jeopardy.

Very long delays before matters go to trial cause inherent prejudice: memories fail, potential witnesses die, costs accrue, corporate identities such as CRHC must carry some potential liability, etc. Mr. Oommen’s failure to do what the court ordered may result in an adjournment of the trial; that is a serious prejudice in a situation such as this one where the proceedings are so old. [ 43 ] While it's true that Mr. Oommen's failure to provide the required undertakings has spanned a few years, that failure cannot be characterized as flagrant, and therefore aggravating: until recently, CRHC has not cited Mr.

Oommen in contempt or taken other effective steps to effect disclosure. [ 44 ] There are no mitigating factors which the court must weigh in Mr. Oommen’s favour; even his reluctant admission that he had not done what the court ordered him to do was only drawn out from him during the course of the hearing before this court. He has not apologized for his conduct. [ 45 ] While it is not a mitigating factor, the court notes that the order which Mr.

Oommen flouted was a private one, one which does not address a public benefit. [ 46 ] The two major objectives of the sanction, or sentence, for contempt are: compliance on the one hand, and personal and general deterrence on the other. In the circumstances here, this means that, on the one hand, any sanction imposed should attempt to ensure that Mr. Oommen provides the information that he is required to provide. This is not a situation where the only party who might be harmed by a failure to comply is Mr. Oommen; rather, this is a situation where Mr.

Oommen's failure to complete his medical history may give him a litigation advantage. In attempting to serve the objectives of an appropriate sanction, the court’s sentence should also encourage Mr. Oommen to obey court orders in the future and should discourage any members of the public who come to hear of this situation from flouting court orders. [ 47 ] Unsurprisingly, in the circumstances here CHRC has not suggested that incarceration of Mr. Oommen should become part of any sanction imposed.

One presumes that a fine usually can be paid; obviously, where it is clear that a fine cannot, or will not, be paid, another form of sanction must be considered because otherwise the contemnor will face no consequences for his misconduct. As was indicated in Pronesti , overall, the court focusses on compliance rather than on punishment: Custodial sentences for civil contempt are rare. Lengthy custodial sentence are even rarer. Canadian courts have tended to punish contempt of court leniently.

Ordinarily the mere conviction for contempt together with a modest fine suffices to obtain compliance and protect the court's authority. Ordinarily incarceration is a sanction of last resort: see Robert J. Sharpe, Injunctions and Specific Performance, 3d. ed. (Aurora: Canada Law Book, 2000) at para. 6.120.

i) Fine [ 48 ] CHRC asks for the imposition of a fine. Any fine imposed as a punishment for contempt must be reasonable, both with respect to the contemnor’s ability to pay and with respect to the gravity of the breach. A fine should also be within the range of fines imposed for similar misconduct in this jurisdiction. As indicated above, in the absence of special circumstances, a fine will usually be minimal. [ 49 ] As indicated above, Mr. Oommen’s contempt is grave. [ 50 ] However, I have no evidence, and little information, about Mr. Oommen’s ability to pay a fine.

The only information I have is that contained at p. 24 of the transcript of the hearing before the Master where the Master awards costs against Mr. Oommen, payable in any event of the cause, but payable only at the conclusion of the proceedings. What can be inferred from the Master’s treatment of costs is that an order for costs which required Mr. Oommen to pay forthwith may deprive Mr. Oommen of the ability to carry on with the lawsuit. [ 51 ] As to the range of fines imposed for contempt of the kind shown by Mr.

Oommen, the cases mentioned by the applicant are, with respect, not useful because the factual circumstances here are so different from the fact situations in those decisions. In the absence of any range of fines imposed on persons in Mr. Oommen’s circumstances who have committed similar contempts, I conclude that a modest fine is one which somewhat exceeds the cost of a contested application.

[ 52 ] Based on the only information available to the court, which suggests that Mr. Oommen has limited means, the fine should be greater than the cost of a contested hearing, but should not be as great as would be appropriate if the plaintiff were a man of means. Also, because Mr. Oommen apparently has limited means and because an application for

summary judgment in favour of the defence has previously been denied by the Master, the usual requirement that fines and costs be paid before any new step can be taken in the proceedings is not appropriate here. The fine will be paid by Mr. Oommen to CHRC in any event of the cause, but is only required to be paid or accounted for at the conclusion of the proceedings. [ 53 ] In the circumstances here, I conclude that the fair and reasonable fine is $1,000.00 ii ) Ongoing contempt [ 54 ] This is a situation where Mr. Oommen has not only failed to purge his contempt, but one where Mr.

Oommen has steadfastly maintained that he is not required to do anything more. Mr. Oommen must comply with paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the October 21, 2015 order by 4:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016. [ 55 ] Because Mr. Oommen is a self-represented litigant, I have concluded that this is not a situation in which there should be an automatic striking of his statement of claim if he has not complied with the Master’s order by that date. Instead, if Mr. Oommen fails to comply with the order by June 17, 2016, CHRC is at liberty to set down peremptorily an application to strike Mr.

Oommen’s statement of claim. [ 56 ] A stay of these proceedings is ordered until Mr. Oommen complies with the Master’s order. 4. Costs [ 57 ] CRHC shall have its costs of this application, on an accelerated basis. In principle, costs on a contempt hearing are appropriately set on the highest level, solicitor and his own client, or full indemnity, basis. An indemnity basis, as opposed to a solicitor/client basis, does not vet for reasonableness. Nevertheless, in the best tradition of professionalism, counsel for CHRC presented a bill of costs representing an indemnity award. Since Mr.

Oommen is self-represented, he is not in a good position to assess whether all of the work done by the solicitors for CRHC can legitimately be claimed on this application. The contempt application itself was straightforward: the breaches of the order were obvious, the law is clear, and the respondent is a self-represented litigant who would not be expected to present a legal argument in defence. Also, some of the time spent in preparing for this application will doubtless be useful to the defendant in the action itself; the time spent reviewing the material that was actually presented by Mr.

Oommen should not all be linked to the costs of this application. The claim for a little over 35 hours of time on this application appears to me to have conflated some time for preparation of trial material with preparation for the contempt hearing; the claim for billable hours is reduced by half and the claim for prospective fees is disallowed.

The other components of the Bill of Costs, e.g. for non-taxable and taxable disbursements and for GST, are allowed as claimed. [ 58 ] As indicated above in respect of the fine, the costs of this application will be paid or accounted for at the conclusion of the proceedings. Heard on the 3 rd day of May, 2016. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 17 th day of May, 2016. J.B. Veit J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Paul Oommen, on his own behalf Colin C. Neal, Brownlee LLP for the Defendants