court of appeal for ontario - academicfreedom.ca

15. The University was directed by this Court to keep its oral presentation at the
motion to 15 minutes. The Defendant had a reasonable expectation that the University of
Ottawa (having identical interests to those of the Plaintiff) would not be awarded costs.
16. For these reasons, it is submitted that costs should not be awarded to the
University of Ottawa.
In the alternative, the costs claims are excessive
17. In the alternative, if any costs should be awarded, it is contrary to public policy
for both the University of Ottawa and the Plaintiff to seek costs, given that their interests are
identical, and the latter’s costs are being paid voluntarily by the former.
18. The entire motion was based on only one affidavit which was not cross-examined.
It was essentially centred on a single question of law (res judicata) which the Plaintiff argued
is not a substantive issue.
19. That the Gowlings law firm spent 15 hours researching the single point of issue
estoppel is difficult to understand. Additionally, that counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Dearden,
needed to research such points as the open court principle for 12 hours is likewise difficult to
understand given his known expertise in the area. It is also difficult to understand how
counsel for the University could have spent 13.4 hours to research the relevant law. The
claimed research times of the experienced counsels appear excessive, in view of the
straightforward legal questions of res judicata and the test for leave to appeal.
Rules of Civil Proceedure, Rule 57.01 (1) (c) [Tab 4]
20. The claimed amounts are far in excess of all past full-day and half-day motions in
this action and largely exceed what can be reasonably expected for the proceeding.
Rules of Civil Proceedure, Rule 57.01 (1) (0.b) [Tab 4]
Irrelevant and prejudicial statements
21. The Defendant respectfully requests that the irrelevant and prejudicial statements
of the Plaintiff and University in their costs submissions be disregarded by the Court,
pursuant to Rule 25.11(a):
(i) The scheduling of motions and examinations in the action is efficiently managed
by the case management judge and is not relevant to the instant costs
considerations;
(ii) The alleged “stings of libel” are not relevant;
(iii) The allegations of “partisan and biased supporters” are not relevant;
(iv) The allegation of misrepresentation in the Defendant’s affidavit (which was not
cross-examined) is contrary to the evidence.
All such elements are meant only to be prejudicial against the Defendant.
4