Veysey v. Superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Complex et al., (2007) 220 O.A.C. 96 (DC)

• Judge: Lane, Chapnik and G.P. Smith, JJ.
• Court: Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
• Case Date: January 29, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (2007), 220 O.A.C. 96 (DC)

Veysey v. Superintendent (2007), 220 O.A.C. 96 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. FE.018

Timothy Veysey (applicant) v. Superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Complex, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and Attorney General of Ontario (respondents)

(447/05)

Indexed As: Veysey v. Superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Complex et al.

Court of Ontario

Superior Court of Justice

Divisional Court

Lane, Chapnik and G.P. Smith, JJ.

January 29, 2007.

Summary:

The Superintendent of Maplehurst Correctional Complex found an inmate guilty of the misconduct offence of assault. The inmate applied for certiorari to quash the Superintendent's decision. He argued procedural unfairness. The inmate also sought a declaration that the Inmate Misconduct provisions of Regulation 778, R.R.O. 1990, violated s. 7 of the Charter and were of no force and effect pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported 217 O.A.C. 262, dismissed the application. The parties made submissions in writing respecting costs.

The Ontario Divisional Court ordered that the parties bear their own costs throughout.

Practice - Topic 7029.5

Costs - Party and party costs - Entitlement to party and party costs - Successful party - Exceptions - Public interest or test case - An inmate was unsuccessful in seeking to quash a correctional institution superintendent's decision finding him guilty of the misconduct offence of assault - He was also unsuccessful in seeking to have the relevant legislative provisions declared unconstitutional - The institution sought costs but reduced its request from $14,100 to $7,000 - The Ontario Divisional Court ordered that the parties bear their own costs - Awarding costs against the inmate would be a "brutal deterrent" to future inmates seeking to protect or further inmates' rights in Ontario - Voluntary reduction by the institution did not matter - Even $7,000 meant that prisoners were not welcome - It was not in the public interest to create such a barrier to justice for some of the community's most unfortunate members - Where, as here, litigation by such a citizen raised bona fide issues of law or procedural fairness of importance to the community, it was appropriate to exercise discretion respecting costs.

Cases Noticed:

Valpy v. Commission on Election Finances (Ont.) (1989), 32 O.A.C. 255 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 4].

Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 76; 315 N.R. 201; 183 O.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 4, consd. [para. 5].

Incredible Electronics Inc. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al, [2006] O.T.C. 476 (Sup. Ct.), consd. [para. 7].

British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band et al., [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371; 313 N.R. 84; 189 B.C.A.C. 161; 309 W.A.C. 161, consd. [para. 8].

St. James’ Preservation Society v. Toronto (City) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 794 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

Mahar v. Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. (1995), 25 O.R.(3d) 690 (Gen. Div.), consd. [para. 10].

Counsel:

Nancy Charbonneau, for the applicant;

Daniel Guttman, for the respondents.

Written submissions on costs were made in November 2006, to Lane, Chapnik and G.P. Smith, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court. Lane, J., released the following endorsement as to costs for the Divisional Court on January 29, 2007.