Date: 20030219
Docket: T-1190-98
Neutral citation: 2003 FCT 197
BETWEEN:
VIJAY KUMAR GOELA
Applicant
- and -
VIA RAIL CANADA INC.
Respondent
RUSSELL J.
[2] Mr. Goela, the Applicant, represented himself.
[3] No grounds of appeal were set out in the motion and, during the course of his oral presentation, Mr. Goela was not able to articulate any such grounds. He merely wanted the court to consider various pieces of documentary evidence and to hear various arguments that had either not been put to Prothonotary Lafrenière or had not been given sufficient weight in his previous appearances before Prothonotary Lafrenière and Madam Justice Reed.
[4] After reviewing the materials and hearing Mr. Goela's presentation I am satisfied that no grounds of appeal exist. Discretionary orders of prothonotaries should not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly wrong in the sense that the exercise of the discretion was based upon a wrong principle or misapprehension of facts, or they raise questions vital to the final issue of the case. Canada v. Aqua -Gem Investments Ltd, [1993] 2 F.C. 425, [1993] 1 C.T.C. 186, 93 D.T.C. 5080, 149 N.R. 273 (C.A.).
[5] On the basis of the materials before him, the decision of Prothonotary Lafrenière was not clearly wrong and no appealable grounds for considering it as such were put forward by Mr. Goela.
[6] In so far as I may be required to consider Prothonotary Lafrenière's decision de novo. I am satisfied that, on the basis of the materials before him, his decision was correct.
[7] Counsel for the Respondent asked me to award costs on a solicitor client basis fixed at $3000.00.
[8] My attention was drawn to the long history of this dispute, the high cost to the Respondent of Mr. Goela's repeated attempts to litigate matters which are res judicata and the serious allegations of misconduct made by the Applicant against the Respondent and its legal counsel, as well as the inefficient use of the court's time and resources.
[9] Counsel for the Respondent also drew my attention to Rule 400 (3) (k) and the need to consider the need for costs in a situation where any step in a proceeding is improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or is taken through negligence or mistake.
[10] I am also mindful of the words of Cullen J. in Valerie Morrow v. Her Majesty the Queen 91, D.T.C. 5267 and Strayer J. in Sawridge Band of Indians v. Canada [1987] F.C.J. No. 730 and the grounds for awarding costs on a solicitor client basis where litigation is vexatious and where someone had abused the process of the Court.
[11] While I recognize that Mr. Goela's repeated litigation has certainly been vexatious for the Respondent and unnecessary from a legal perspective, I feel that his efforts to bring his complaints to my attention were not intended to be so, and that he merely lacked an understanding of the process he is involved in (not uncommon in the case of unrepresented litigants) and wished the court to consider additional materials that he believed made a difference to his case. At the same time, I feel he should not be encouraged to use the court system any further to continue a dispute with the Respondent that has already been litigated.
[12] Consequently I have awarded costs on this appeal in the amount of $300.00 in favour of the Respondent.
"James Russell"
J. F.C.C.
Toronto, Ontario
February 19, 2003
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
DOCKET: T-1190-98
STYLE OF CAUSE: VIJAY KUMAR GOELA
Applicant
- and -
VIA RAIL CANADA INC.
Respondent
DATE OF HEARING: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2003
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR ORDER BY: RUSSELL J.
DATED: WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 2003
APPEARANCES BY: Mr. Vijay Kumar Goela
Applicant in own right
Mr. John A. Campion
Mr. Robert J. Cooper
Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Vijay Kumar Goela
Toronto, Ontario
Applicant in own right
John A. Campion/Mr. Robert J. Cooper
Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
66 Wellington Street West
Suite 4200, Toronto Dominion Bank Centre
Box 20, Toronto-Dominion Centre
Toronto, Ontario.
M5K 1N6.
Respondent
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Date: 20030219
Docket: IMM-1190-98
BETWEEN:
VIJAY KUMAR GOELA
Applicant
- and -
VIA RAIL CANADA INC.
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER