2013 ONSC 6216, 2013 ONSC 6216

CITATION : Gammie v. South Bruce Peninsula (Town of), 2013 ONSC 6216 COURT FILE NO.: 12-315 DATE: 20131003 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: CRAIG GAMMIE Applicant v. TOWN OF SOUTH BRUCE PENINSULA Respondent BEFORE: CONLAN J. COUNSEL: Craig Gammie, in person Eric Davis, for the Respondent ENDORSEMENT RE COSTS Conlan J. Background [ 1 ] The Applicant, Craig Gammie (“Mr. Gammie”), brought an Application to, among other things, declare invalid a Resolution that had been passed by the Respondent, the Town of South Bruce Peninsula (the “Town”). [ 2 ] The Resolution, among other items, banned Mr.

Gammie from attending the Town’s Council meetings. [ 3 ] After numerous adjournments, the matter finally came before me for argument on May 23, 2013. On that date, I suggested to Mr. Gammie and counsel for the Town that they consider resolving the Application along particular lines. Frankly, without at all deciding whether the Resolution was in fact illegal, I was concerned that the Town had not provided to Mr. Gammie an opportunity to be heard before the Resolution was passed. [ 4 ] After some discussions between the parties at Court, the following Consent Order was issued. 1.

The application is dismissed as abandoned. 2. The parties shall make written submissions on costs. Each party shall serve the other and file the submissions with the Court by 4:00 p.m. on Friday, May 31, 2013. The submissions from each party shall be limited to two pages excluding any offer to settle, costs outline and/or bill of costs. 3. The Town of South Bruce Peninsula shall, by the end of July 2013, convene a special meeting of Council. Mr. Gammie shall be invited to attend that special meeting. At that special meeting, Mr.

Gammie shall be granted an opportunity to make submissions as to why the Resolution should be varied or repealed. Town Council shall, within 30 days of the date of the special meeting, render its decision on whether the Resolution remains in place as is, or is varied, or is repealed. Town Council shall give reasons for its decision. 4. Between May 23, 2013 and the date that Town Council renders its decision, the Resolution shall be suspended in so far as Mr.

Gammie shall be permitted to attend Council Meetings subject to the following 4 conditions: 1) Mr. Gammie shall not record, in whole or in part, any Council Meeting. 2) Mr. Gammie shall restrict himself to Council Chambers. 3) Mr. Gammie shall, at all times, maintain decorum. 4) Mr. Gammie shall not interact, in any way, with Town staff with the exception of the Town’s Administrator. [ 5 ] Although I am not certain exactly what transpired after the issuance of my May 23, 2013 Consent Order, I gather that there was a special meeting of Town Council which Mr.

Gammie attended and spoke at, however, the ban remained in place. [ 6 ] I have now received written submissions on costs from the Town and from Mr. Gammie. The Positions of the Parties [ 7 ] The Town seeks costs in its favour, on a substantial indemnity scale, in the amount of $25,262.28 for fees, taxes included, plus $2,909.49 for disbursements, taxes included. [ 8 ] Mr. Gammie seeks costs in his favour in the total amount of $880.00.

Analysis [ 9 ] The Town is presumed to be entitled to costs: Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure . [ 10 ] The overriding principle of costs is that an award ought to be just, fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances and taking in to account the prudent expectations of the parties. [ 11 ] There is nil merit to Mr. Gammie’s request for costs. [ 12 ] I categorically reject the submission by Mr. Gammie that he reasonably inferred from what happened on May 23, 2013 that no costs to that date would be awarded against him. Mr. Gammie is an intelligent man – he has appeared before me several times.

His alleged belief makes absolutely no sense in light of the clear wording of clause 2 of the Consent Order made on May 23, 2013. [ 13 ] There is nothing before me to cause a departure from the normal presumption that the Town is entitled to costs. There is no reason to conclude otherwise. [ 14 ] I will, however, significantly temper the quantum of costs awarded in the Town’s favour. There are two reasons for me doing so. [ 15 ] First, the issues raised by Mr. Gammie were important ones. And I cannot say that his Application was frivolous or completely without any merit. [ 16 ] Second, although Mr.

Gammie strikes me as a litigious fellow with too much time on his hands, I think there is some reasonable chance that the Application would have been avoided had the Town given Mr. Gammie an opportunity to be heard before it enacted the Resolution. Again, without at all passing judgment on the merits of the Application, that would clearly have been the fairer approach. Conclusion [ 17 ] Costs ordered in favour of the Town in the amount of $10,000.00 for fees, taxes included, plus $2,909.49 for disbursements, taxes included. [ 18 ] Mr.

Gammie shall have 90 days from today to pay those costs. ___________________________ Conlan J. CITATION : Gammie v. South Bruce Peninsula (Town of), 2013 ONSC 6216 COURT FILE NO.: 12-315

DATE: 20131003 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Craig Gammie Applicant v. Town of South Bruce Peninsula Respondent BEFORE: Conlan J. COUNSEL: Craig Gammie, in person Eric Davis, for the Respondent ENDORSEMENT RE COSTS Conlan J.