Clark v Pezzente, 2016 ABQB 480

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Clark v Pezzente, 2016 ABQB 480 Date: 20160829 Docket: 1501 04482 Registry: Calgary Between: Alexander S. Clark Plaintiff/Appellant - and - Maruizio Pezzente, Toronto Dominion Bank, TD Canada Trust, TD Investment Services Inc., TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. Defendants/Respondents _______________________________________________________ Endorsement on Costs of the Honourable Mr. Justice W.P.

Sullivan _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] I rendered my decision in this matter on the 28 th day of June, 2016 dismissing the appeal of this action from the Master’s decision dated the 5 th of November, 2015. My decision is reported at 2016 ABQB 361 . In my decision I advised the parties that I would be prepared to consider submissions made in writing regarding costs. On July 14, 2016, I received the written submissions of the Defendants which were copied to the Plaintiff Mr. Alexander S. Clark. Counsel for Defendants have advised the Court that they have advised Mr.

Clark of their intention to make written submissions on costs and invited him to coordinate submissions. They have not had any response. The Court has not received submissions on costs from the Plaintiff. [ 2 ] The proceedings in this action are set out in the Defendant’s application for costs and essentially are as follows: (

a) The original action was commenced in 2006 and the matter went to trial in 2012. (

b) The claim was dismissed. Mr. Clark appealed. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of Alberta in April of 2013 and leave to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused.

(

c) In November of 2014, Mr. Clark applied for leave to present new evidence. His application was dismissed. (

d) Mr. Clark commenced the present action in 2015 claiming more than $5,000,000 and alleging fraud on the part of the Bank. (

e) After the commencement of the present action, the Defendants applied to strike and set aside or stay the action while Mr. Clark applied for

summary judgment. After two sessions in argument in November of 2015, Master Robertson of this Court dismissed the application for

summary judgment and struck the claim. That order was appealed. I dismissed the appeal upholding the decision of Master Robertson. [ 3 ] In their submissions, the Defendants note that they have been successful at every step of the present action and according to the Rules, are entitled to their costs. [ 4 ] The Defendants ask for taxable costs, pursuant to column 5 of

Schedule C. [ 5 ] Their request is granted. Heard on the 22 nd day of June, 2016. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 29 th day of August, 2016. W.P. Sullivan J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Alexander S. Clark Self-Represented Litigant Rinus de Waal for the Defendants/respondent