Ontario’s top court has ordered a former worker to pay a total of $35,000 in costs to two separate groups of respondents he sued for wrongful dismissal and conspiracy.
The matter arose after the worker, G.T., launched a civil claim against several parties — including T.A., S.A., Amir Quality Meats, Amir Specialty Poultry, M.C. and Mallot Creek. These defendants are referred to in the decision as the Aziz respondents and the Mallot Creek respondents.
The core dispute began when G.T., acting without legal counsel, sued the respondents, alleging wrongful dismissal and conspiracy. The Aziz respondents and the Mallot Creek respondents subsequently brought separate motions under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike G.T.’s claim.
Soon after, G.T. moved to examine two witnesses in advance of the motion to strike. That request was dismissed by the motion judge. G.T. then filed a notice of appeal challenging the dismissal of his motion to examine witnesses. The court noted that the order under appeal was interlocutory and thus not generally subject to appeal in that forum.
History of unpaid cost orders
Despite this jurisdictional hurdle, G.T. took steps to perfect his appeal. The respondents incurred expenses in preparing responding materials, including factums and compendiums, to address the arguments G.T. raised. The Aziz respondents and the Mallot Creek respondents jointly brought a motion for security for costs, asserting that G.T. had a history of unpaid cost orders.
Security for costs motions can be pivotal in employment-related litigation, ensuring that if a defending party succeeds on appeal, they can recoup some of the legal fees expended.
Appeal later abandoned
Shortly after the motion for security for costs was served, G.T. requested an adjournment, citing a family health emergency. The motion was rescheduled. Before the adjourned hearing took place, however, G.T. abandoned his appeal by delivering a notice of abandonment. Once the appeal was abandoned, the respondents maintained that the Rules of Civil Procedure entitled them to seek costs for both the appeal and the motion for security.
According to the court, rules 61.14(3) and (4) establish that “upon abandonment, a respondent is entitled to costs of the appeal, unless the abandonment took place before the respondent filed a response to the appeal.” Because the Aziz respondents and the Mallot Creek respondents had already filed their responses, the court was satisfied that they were entitled to recover their legal costs.
Court rejects worker’s bid for no costs
G.T. asked the court to “exercise a discretion to order no costs.” His argument was primarily based on personal circumstances that, he said, caused him to abandon the appeal. He also claimed that the respondents delayed in bringing their security for costs motion, creating further prejudice for him. The court addressed this request directly, stating: “Assuming we have such a discretion we would not exercise it.”
In its reasons, the court found there was “nothing in the timing of the motion for security that should deprive the respondents of their entitlement to costs on abandonment of the appeal nor to reasonable indemnity in respect of the expenses wasted on the motion for security.”
The court declined to accept G.T.’s implication that he had been “lulled into believing that security would not be sought.” It also noted that G.T. had “substantial unpaid costs orders.” In other words, the court concluded G.T. should have reasonably anticipated that “as he was causing these respondents to incur expenses,” they would seek assurances they could recover costs if they prevailed.
Calculating the amount
Turning to the issue of how much G.T. would be required to pay, the court reviewed the detailed bills of costs submitted by both sets of respondents. The Aziz respondents and the Mallot Creek respondents each provided itemized claims reflecting their legal fees and disbursements.
The court acknowledged the need for some reduction, but still awarded the Aziz respondents a lump sum of $20,000 and the Mallot Creek respondents a lump sum of $15,000, both amounts inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes. As a result, G.T. faces a total cost obligation of $35,000.
In the court’s view, the responsibility for these costs rested with G.T., who chose to pursue an interlocutory appeal the court determined was not the appropriate path. By abandoning the appeal after respondents had prepared and filed materials, G.T. triggered the cost consequences set out in the procedural rules.
Although the court recognized G.T.’s personal challenges, it pointed to the broader principle that when a litigant initiates proceedings and compels opposing parties to defend themselves, those respondents are generally entitled to recover the expenses incurred if the claim is withdrawn.
The timing of the security for costs motion, coupled with G.T.’s eventual decision to abandon his appeal, did not persuade the court to deviate from this principle.
For more information, see Tewari v. Aziz, 2025 ONCA 29 (CanLII).
