Costs: Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m Text replacement - "\{\{fr\|([^\}\}]+)\}\}" to "fr:$1"
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
[[fr:Coûts]]
{{Currency2|January|2020}}
{{Currency2|January|2020}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPreTrial}}
{{LevelZero}}{{HeaderPreTrial}}

Latest revision as of 14:23, 14 July 2024

This page was last substantively updated or reviewed January 2020. (Rev. # 95341)

General Principles

Costs against the Crown require Crown misconduct or a serious interference with the authority of the court or administration of justice. [1]

Costs against the Crown are "an exceptional or remarkable event."[2] Costs may be ordered as a remedy to a Charter breach.[3] Not just any Charter breach will result in costs.[4] It should be conduct where the Crown is "reponsible for some misconduct, complicit in it, or other unique circumstances exist."[5]

The reason behind this is that costs would have the effect of deterring the Crown from exercising their duties in the public interest to the fullest extent.[6]

While there is no closed list of circumstances, situations where costs may be ordered against the Crown is where the prosecution has been (1) frivolous, (2) for an oblique motive, or (3) where the Crown has taken up the matter as a test case.[7]

Jurisdiction

The "jurisdiction for awarding costs in criminal matters is extremely narrow and the threshold is very high."[8]

In determining whether there should be costs against the Crown, the Court may apply its "inherent power to protect against abuse of process."[9]

A provincial court has no jurisdiction to order punitive costs against the defence.[10]

A preliminary inquiry judge does not have the jurisdiction to make orders of cost against the crown.[11]

A Youth Justice Court sitting as a trial court has jurisdiction to award costs against the Crown for a Charter breach.[12]

Where the accused has been arraigned and entered a plea before a court of competent jurisdiction, that court becomes the trial court which may be able to hear costs even after a stay of proceedings is entered.[13]

A bail hearing judge under section 515 (1) is not a "court of competent jurisdiction" within the meaning of section 24 (1) of the Charter and so has no jurisdiction to order costs against the Crown.[14]

Case management roles created under section 482(3)(c) cannot convey jurisdiction upon the provincial court to order costs outside of the Charter or the Criminal Code.[15]

Costs Against the Crown

Costs against the Crown are "rare" but are permitted when they are "integrally connected to the court's control of its trial process, and are intended as a means of disciplining and discouraging behaviour."[16]

Costs Against Defence

There has been some suggestion that costs may also be ordered against the defence in certain circumstances.[17]

Appeal

Under s. 676.1, a party ordered to pay costs may appeal the order and amount with leave to the court of appeal.

Disclosure

Costs as a remedy for failure to provide timely disclosure requires that there be a "marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution". It is not necessary to establish a "flagrant disregard for the accused's rights" or "egregious conduct". [18]

Test Case

A "test case" would be one where the Crown persues a valid social purpose by seeking to settle a point of law. This will incur a cost that should not be born by just one individual.[19]

However, where the accused "has a significant practical stake in the prosecution, high public interest in the outcome of the proceedings" then it should not be considered a "test case."[20]

  1. ↑ R v Magda, 2006 CanLII 36822 (ON CA), 213 CCC (3d) 492, per Feldman JA
    R v Griffin, 2009 ABQB 696 (CanLII), 485 AR 251, per Greckol J, at para 176
  2. ↑ R v 974649 Ontario Inc, 2001 SCC 81 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 575, per McLachlin CJ, at para 86
  3. ↑ R v Singh, 2009 NSSC 306 (CanLII), 900 APR 266, per Duncan J, at para 25 - it must be ordered by a superior court judge
    R v Ralph, 2008 NLCA 71 (CanLII), 863 APR 347, per Mercer JA, at para 12
    R v Pang, 1994 ABCA 371 (CanLII), 95 CCC (3d) 60, per Harradence JA
  4. ↑ R v SEL, 2013 ABCA 45 (CanLII), 105 WCB (2d) 404, per Bielby JA, at para 9
  5. ↑ R v Taylor, 2008 NSCA 5 (CanLII), 230 CCC (3d) 504, per Saunders JA, at para 43
  6. ↑ Ralph, supra, at para 13
    Taylor, supra, at para 43
  7. ↑ R v King, 1986 CanLII 1156 (BC CA), 26 CCC (3d) 349, per Lambert JA, at para 13
    see also R v Neustaedter, 2003 BCSC 39 (CanLII), BCJ No 3138, per Stromberg-Stein J, at para 7
  8. ↑ R v Leyshon‑Hughes, 2009 ONCA 16 (CanLII), 240 CCC (3d) 181, per Simmons JA, at para 55
  9. ↑ Canada (Attorney General) v Foster, 2006 CanLII 38732 (ON CA), 215 CCC (3d) 59, per Rosenberg JA, at para 69
  10. ↑ R v Gunn, 2003 ABQB 314 (CanLII), 105 CRR (2d) 39, per Langston J, at para 48
  11. ↑ R v Howard, 2009 PECA 27 (CanLII), 250 CCC (3d) 102, per Jenkins CJ – Application for costs due to delay of disclosure
  12. ↑ R v Mills, 1986 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 863, per McIntyre J
    R v Conway, 2010 SCC 22 (CanLII), [2010] 1 SCR 765, per Abella J
    R v 974649 Ontario Inc, 2001 SCC 81 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 575, per McLachlin CJ
  13. ↑ R v CW, 2011 ABPC 205 (CanLII), 512 AR 310, per Lefever J - re Youth Justice Court
    R v Pang, 1994 ABCA 371 (CanLII), 95 CCC (3d) 60, per Harradence JA - provincial court permitted in some circumstances
  14. ↑ R v Menard, 2008 BCCA 521 (CanLII), 240 CCC (3d) 1, per Finch CJ
  15. ↑ R v Campbell, 2008 BCSC 805 (CanLII), per Romilly J
  16. ↑ R v Kocet, 2016 ONCJ 329 (CanLII), per McKay J, at para 6
    R v Singh, 2016 ONCA 108 (CanLII), 28 CR (7th) 124, per Pardu JA
    R v Ferncan Developments, 2016 ONCA 269 (CanLII), 335 CCC (3d) 519, per LaForme JA
  17. ↑ R v Dumont, 2002 ABPC 44 (CanLII), 308 AR 334, per Lefeber J
  18. ↑ R v Henkel, 2003 ABCA 23 (CanLII), [2003] AJ No 51 (ABCA), per Ritter JA
    R v Branton, 2010 NLTD 207 (CanLII), 951 APR 19, per Hndrigan J - costs awarded for delayed disclosure
  19. ↑ Ralph, supra, at para 15
    R v Trask, 1987 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1987] 2 SCR 304, per McIntyre J, at pp. 307-308
  20. ↑ Ralph, supra, at para 18

Summary Conviction Court

Costs

809 (1) The summary conviction court may in its discretion award and order such costs as it considers reasonable and not inconsistent with such of the fees established by section 840 [fees and allowances] as may be taken or allowed in proceedings before that summary conviction court, to be paid

(a) to the informant by the defendant, where the summary conviction court convicts or makes an order against the defendant; or
(b) to the defendant by the informant, where the summary conviction court dismisses an information.
Order set out

(2) An order under subsection (1) [power to order costs by summary conviction court] shall be set out in the conviction, order or order of dismissal, as the case may be.

Costs are part of fine

(3) Where a fine or sum of money or both are adjudged to be paid by a defendant and a term of imprisonment in default of payment is imposed, the defendant is, in default of payment, liable to serve the term of imprisonment imposed, and for the purposes of this subsection, any costs that are awarded against the defendant shall be deemed to be part of the fine or sum of money adjudged to be paid.

Where no fine imposed

(4) Where no fine or sum of money is adjudged to be paid by a defendant, but costs are awarded against the defendant or informant, the person who is liable to pay them is, in default of payment, liable to imprisonment for one month.

Definition of “costs”

(5) In this section, "costs" includes the costs and charges, after they have been ascertained, of committing and conveying to prison the person against whom costs have been awarded.
R.S., c. C-34, s. 744.
[annotation(s) added]

– CCC (CanLII), (DOJ)

Note up: 809(1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)

Costs Personally Against Counsel

There are three sources of authority to order costs against counsel:[1]

  1. the inherent jurisdcition and the ancillary powers of the court over its own process[2]
  2. as a remedy authorized under s. 24(1) of th Charter [3]
  3. statute.

Section 482 and 482.1 permit the courts to make rules that would allow personal costs against counsel.[4]

Purpose

The purpose of awarding personal costs against counsel is to enforce compliance with the rules, change "the culture of complacency", "break bad habits" of counsel, and preserve "public confidence in the criminal justice system."[5] This will necessarily include a punitive and compensatory element.[6] By contrast, the purpose of a finding of contempt or abuse of process is purely to punish.[7]

Raising Costs

The issue of costs can be raised by opposing counsel or by the court on its own motion.[8]

Standard of Conduct

In exceptional cases costs can be awarded against a lawyer personally. This typically is where there is some form of wilful misconduct or dishonesty.[9] However, neither "bad faith" nor "wilful misconduct" are required.[10]

The power to orders costs should be "exercised with restraint", especially against defence counsel where the right to full answer and defence may be compromised.[11]

There is some suggestion that a standard to be applied is one of a “marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected” test.[12] The standard of "marked departure" goes beyond mere negligence[13] or "inadvertent error."[14]

Costs should not apply to Charter breaches that are "routinely ordered."[15]

Standard of Proof

The standard of balance of probabilities should apply to a motion for costs.[16]

Procedure

Where costs are being considered, the court should ensure the procedure accomplishes the following:Gowenlock, supra, at para 100

  1. the respondent has a right to notice, including the allegations, evidence, and consequences.
  2. the respondent has a right to be heard.
  3. opposing party will usually not have a role in the hearing but may be present.
  4. Prior conduct outside of proceedings has no bearing at the liability phase, but may at the penalty phase.

The hearing for costs should normally be held after the merits of the initial proceedings are concluded.[17]

  1. ↑ R v Gowenlock, 2019 MBCA 5 (CanLII), per Chartier CJ, at para 27 citing Ruby on Sentencing.
  2. ↑ see also Quebec (Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v Jodoin, 2017 SCC 26 (CanLII), [2017] 1 SCR 478, per Gascon J
  3. ↑ see also R v 974649 Ontario Inc, 2001 SCC 81 (CanLII), [2001] 3 SCR 575, per McLachlin CJ
  4. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at para 63
  5. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at paras 47, 74, , at paras 86
  6. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at para 74
  7. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at para 75
  8. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at para 100
  9. ↑ e.g. AG Quebec v Cronier, 1981 CanLII 3179 (QC CA), 63 CCC (3d) 437, per L'Heureux-Dube JA, at pp. 448-449
    Pacific Mobile Corp. v Hunter Douglas, 1979 CanLII 201 (SCC), [1979] 1 SCR 842, per Pigeon J
  10. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at para 71
  11. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at paras 79 and hx9q5106
    Jodoin, supra, at paras 16 to 17
  12. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at paras 71 ("The “marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected” test has also been accepted in additional cases where costs were at issue in a non-Charter and/or statutory context.")80 ("I would adopt a lower standard of conduct than in Jodoin. I would opt for the standard set by the Supreme Court of Canada for Charter-infringement cases in 974649 Ontario Inc: the impugned conduct must be “a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected” ... of counsel, which, for all intents and purposes, is the same as the “reasonable excuse” standard found in r 2.03(1).")
  13. ↑ R v Singh, 2016 ONCA 108 (CanLII), 28 CR (7th) 124, per Pardu JA, at para 33
  14. ↑ Singh, ibid., at para 38
  15. ↑ Singh, ibid., at para 38 ("As the above-noted passage makes clear, inadvertent error is not enough to justify an award of costs for breach of the disclosure obligation and costs awards for such breaches will not be routinely ordered in favour of accused persons who establish Charter violations"[quotation marks removed])
    R v Ciarniello, 2006 CanLII 29633 (ON CA), 211 CCC (3d) 540, at para 36
  16. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at para 100
  17. ↑ Gowenlock, supra, at para 100

Case Digests

  • R v Brown, 2009 ONCA 633 (CanLII), 247 CCC (3d) 11, per Sharpe JA - costs of $2000 for Crown continued delay of bail hearing for several weeks. Habeas Corpus application granted.
  • R v Kelln, 2003 SKPC 1 (CanLII), 105 CRR (2d) 366, per Snell J - $500 costs against Crow for failure to provide officer notes on a timely manner. Notes were provided 11 months after request.
  • R v Yeun, 2001 ABPC 145 (CanLII), 291 AR 359, per Lamoureux JA - costs against crown awarded for failure to provide disclosure ($2,200).

See Also

Retrieved from "https://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Costs&oldid=95341"