court of appeal for ontario - academicfreedom.ca

Costs should not be awarded to the Plaintiff
8. The primary objective of an award of costs is indemnification. The principle of
indemnity is the focal point of regular costs orders.
Rules of Civil Proceedure, Rule 57.01 (1) (0.a) [Tab 4]
British Columbia v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71; paras. 20-21 and further
[Tab 5, pages 1-2, 20-26]
9. The Plaintiff’s costs in this private litigation are being entirely paid by the
University of Ottawa on a voluntary basis and without conditions.
St. Lewis v. Rancourt, Reasons for Decision, Justice R. Smith, May 9, 2012; para. 2
[Tab 6, select pages]
Transcript of university president Allan Rock’s April 18, 2012 cross-examination;
p. 25 lines 12 to 22, and p. 35 line 23 to p. 36, line 6
[Tab 7, select pages; and whole transcript filed with the Court]
10. Whether or not this university funding is, in the present case, maintenance and
champerty does not change that there are no costs to the private Plaintiff to be indemnified.
11. In addition, a funding agreement that “raises the prospect of double recovery”,
from both paid legal fees and costs recovered from defendants in an action, is improper. In
the instant case, the University’s asserted oral agreement to fund the Plaintiff’s lawsuit
without any conditions raises such a prospect of double recovery if costs are awarded to the
Plaintiff.
McIntyre v. Ontario, 2002 CanLII 45046 (ON CA); para. 79 [Tab 8, select pages]
Transcript of university president Allan Rock’s April 18, 2012 cross-examination;
p. 25 lines 12 to 22, and p. 35 line 23 to p. 36, line 6
[Tab 7, select pages; and whole transcript filed with the Court]
12. For these reasons, it is submitted that costs should not be awarded to the Plaintiff.
Costs should not be awarded to the University of Ottawa
13. A non party who has not been granted leave to intervene as an added party should
not be awarded costs.
Rules of Civil Proceedure, Rule 57.01 (1) (0.b) [Tab 4]
Rules of Civil Proceedure, Rule 13.01 [Tab 9]
14. The University of Ottawa was a “Non Party Participant” or “Tiers non partie à
l’action” (French) in the Defendant’s motion for leave to appeal and representations by the
parties were not made addressing the costs implications of its participation.
St. Lewis v. Rancourt, Reasons for Decision, Justice R. Smith, May 9, 2012;
header of Reasons in French, and header of Reasons in English [Tab 6]
3