Valastro v. The Corporation of the City of London, 2013 ONSC 7178

CITATION: Valastro v. The Corporation of the City of London, 2013 ONSC 7178 COURT FILE NO.: 8937-12 DATE: 2013/11/21 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: AnnaMaria Valastro (Applicant) - and – The Corporation of the City of London (Respondent) BEFORE: Justice H. A. Rady COUNSEL: The Applicant, in person Nicole D. Hall, for the Respondent HEARD: Written submissions filed E N D O R S E M E N T O N C O S T S [ 1 ] The City seeks its costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $750 and payable forthwith. The request follows my order that Ms. Valastro’s application is dismissed as abandoned. [ 2 ] Ms.

Valastro resists any order for costs being made against her. Her submissions seem to fall into three categories. The first pertains to the actions of her former solicitor and the reasons that I delivered. On the issue of the reasons, Ms. Valastro submits as follows: 9. My Application failed on its merits even though the merits of the Application have never been argued in full, neither during the motion for an interim order or the motion to return the Application. 10.

I do take great issue with this part of the Court’s decision, not because the decision ruled against me, because I accept the Court’s decision, but specifically with the Court truncating my own sentence in highlighting my statement that the ‘Application is now moot.’ 11. Obviously, I did not believe my Application was moot. I stated it was moot as it relates to the construction of the first in a series of storm sewer ponds and therefore in this respect the City cannot claim prejudice. 12. This is not semantics nor am I trying to scold the Court.

I just I want [sic] the Court to understand that for someone from the outside looking in, it raises a big red flag. The consequences of twisting someone’s words to support an ‘end result’ decision is that people will choose their words careful [sic] rather than engage in open dialogue. It is my understanding that the Court is not a place of ambush but rather where all the facts are presented and a judgment rendered. An Officer of the Court cannot mislead. 13. I believe the Court misled when it truncated my sentence in my affidavit in support of its decision. 14.

Having said this, I understand that this was not the only consideration in deciding to render the Application meritless. [ 3 ] Only the submission respecting her former lawyer are relevant to my determination of costs, to which I will return below. The

balance of that submission is more properly the subject of an appeal. [ 4 ] The second category relates to the plight of self represented litigants generally and the third seeks to argue again that the applicant is a public interest litigant. [ 5 ] I have been referred to no authority holding that the difficulties experienced by self represented parties are a recognized basis to relieve against cost consequences. [ 6 ] The applicant has been determined not to be a public interest litigant in thorough and carefully considered reasons previously delivered by Justice Leach in connection with the applicant’s unsuccessful motion for injunctive relief.

Leave to appeal from his decision was denied. I see no basis to rule otherwise now nor would it be appropriate to do so. It is res judicata . [ 7 ] Returning then to Ms. Valastro’s submission respecting the oversights of her solicitor, I agree that the application was only deemed abandoned because of his failure to properly confirm or appear on the initial return date for the hearing of the application.. I commented on this issue in my decision. [ 8 ] However, the fact remains that Ms.

Valastro had the onus and was unsuccessful in persuading the court that the court should relieve against the deemed dismissal as set out in Rule 38.08(2). As a result, I see no reason why costs should not follow the event. [ 9 ] The City’s modest request is granted. Ms. Valastro is ordered to pay $750 within 45 days. “ Justice H. A. Rady” Justice H. A. Rady DATE: November 21, 2013