I
~
UPERIOR
COURT
OF
JUSTiCeCOUR
SUPERIEURE
DE
JUSTICE
COURT
HOUSE
I
PALAIS
DE
JUS1'ICE
161
ELGIN
STREET
1161,
RUE
ELGIN
OTTAWA,ONTARIO
K2P
2K1
Tell
Tel:613.239.1399Fax
I
Telecopieur:613.239.1507
FAX
TRANSMITTAL
FORM
I
BORDEREAU
O e T e L l ~ C O P I E
ATTENTION
Thill
facsimile
mayCQlltl:lin
PRlVll.E:GED
and
CONFIDENllAL
I N F O ~ T I O N o n l y
fi;Jr
u ~ e
of
the
Addrel>eee(s)
named
below.
If
YQU
are
notthe
Intended
reclplont
Qf
this
filcslmile
Qr
theemployee
(jr
agenl
/ljSpon.,;ble
fQr
dellvel1ng
~
to
the
Intended
recipient.
you
are
herebynotfflo(lthaI
any
(lisaeminalion
Or
cQpying
of
tnls
Iil,csimile
Is
strictlyprot)ibitea.If
you
have
recelvM
Ihis
f1:1csimita
In
llrror,
please
Immadilltely
n o ~ f y
usby
telephone
10
arrangefur
thereturnor
dastluc;:(ion
of
thlsdocumenl.
Thankyou.
AVIS
Le
presentdocument
I 6 I ~ C Q p l e
peutcOl'\tllnjrdesRENSEIGNEIVIENTS
P R l V l l . E O I I ~ S
ET
OONF/OENnELS
delStine.s
exclusrl/llment
aux
pel'5onnes
dont
Ie
nom
m e n l i o n ! 1 ~
ci·dessous.
l;»)
VQUS
n ' { \ ~ 6
Pill>
Ie
desllnafllire
de
ce
document
nl
l ' e m p l o ~
ou
agent
~ p o n s a t l r o d l l
Ied611",",r
iJ
son
a E ! S 1 i n ~ l I j r e ,
vous
11l1l1ll
par
la
p r ~ $ n l l l
IIVise
qu'"
ftSf
Efrictement
illlerdil
de
distribuer
OU
copier
oe
document
Si
ce!Ui-·cl
VOIJS
est
parv\'ll1u
parerreur,
ve\Jiliez
nous
en
,!;ViGer
Immllllialement
par
teillphone
el
prendre
les
mli1l1Ures
n e ~ s s a l l 9 l j
pour
noull
18
ra10umerou
Ie
detrulra
Merci.
DATE:January26,2011
TO
I
RECIPIENDAIRE:
l ~
FROM
I
EXPEDITEUR:
FAX
I
TELECOPIEUR:
I
I.
JudicialAssistantforJusticeSmith
SUBJECT
I
OSJET:
Vigna
v,
Levant-CourtFile
No.:
08-CV-41703SR
NUMBER
Of
PAGES
(INCLUDING
COVERSHEET):
7
NOMBRE
DE
PAGES
(INCLUANTBORDEREAU
DE
T E I . I ~ C O P I E ) :
1:81
BY
FAX
ONI..Y
ISEUI..EMENT
PAR
TELECOPJEUR
.
o
ORIOINAL
TO
FOl.,LOWBY
MAIL
I
A
SUIVREPARCOURRIER
o
ORIGINAl..TO
FOLLOWBY
COURIER
I
A
SUIVREPAR
ME$$AGER
MESSAGE:
Veuillezvoir
la
decisiondes
depens
cHointe
du
juge
Smith
au
sujetde
la
matiereprecitee.Veuilleznoterque
la
decisionest
en
anglaisetque
la
traduction
en
francaisa
eta
commandee.NousvousferonspalVen;r
la
decision
en
f r a n ~ i s
lorsquenotrebureau
la
recevra.PleasefindenclosedJusticeSmith's
C o s t ~
decisionregardingtheabove-mentioned
matter.
Pleasenotethatthedecision
is
in
English
and
thataFrenchtranslationhas
been
ordered.Wewillsendyouthedecision
in
French
once
ourofficereceives
it.
IFiYOU
DO
NOTRECEIVE
ALL
PAGES,
PLEASE
CALL
AND
ASK
FOR:
91
L'fNVOI
ESTINCOMPLET,VEUILLEZCOMMUNIQUERAVEC:
CITATION:
Vigna
v.
Levant,2011
ONSC629
COURTFILE
NO.:
08-CV-41703SR
DATE:
2011101126
ONtARIO
SUPERlORCOURTOF
JUSTICE
Defendant
BETWEEN:
GIACOMOVIGNA
-and-
EZRAISAAC
LEVANT
)
)
))
Plaintiff)
)
))
)
)
))
)
Plaintiff
was
self-representedChristopher
Ashby,
for
the
DefendantHEARD:
By
writtensubmissions
R.
SMITH
J.
DECISIONONCOSTS
[1
J
The
factors
to
be
considered
whenfixing
costs
areset
out
in
Rule57
of
the
Rules
o!Civil
Procedure
and
include
in
addition
to
success,
the
amount
churned
and
recovered,
the
complexity
and
importance
of
the
matter
and
the
principle
of
proportionality,
the
conduct
of
any
party
which
undulylengthened
the
proceeding,
whether
any
step
was
improper,vexatious
or
unnecessary,ortakenthroughnegligencemistake
or
excessivecaution,aparty'sdenialor
refusal
to
admitanything,
any
offer
to
settle,
the
principleofindemnity,
scale
ofcosts,hourly
rate
claimed
in
relation
to
the
partialindemnityrate
set
outin
the
Information
to
the
Professioneffective
July
1,
2005,thetime
spent,
a n ~
the
amount
that
a
losing
party
would
reasonablyexpect
to
pay.
Positions
[2]
Giacomo
Vigna
(I'Vigna")
submits
that
he
should
receivecosts
on
asubstantialindemnity
basis
from
April
28,2008
oralternatively,
from
December
3,
2008when
his
first
offer
to
settle
vvas
made.
Vigna
submits
that
he
hasobtainedabetterresult
fol]owing
trial
than
setout
in
hisoffers
to
settle.
The
plaintiff
claims
substantialindemnity
costsfor
thelaw
finn
of
Heenan
Blaikie
of
$26,434.54.Theplaintiff
claims
substantialindemnity
fees
in
the
amount
of
$68,250
for
himself
as
aself-represented
lawyer.
He
claimshis
partialindemnity
costs
were
$45,500.
In
addition,
Vigna
claims
$7,516
in
disbursements.
Vigna
submitsthataglobalcost
award
in
the
range
of
$50,000-$65,000would
be
reasonable
inthese
circumstances.
Page:
2
[3]
EzraLevant("Levant")
submits
that
Yiguashould
be
awardedonlyaverymodest
amou,nt
ofcosts
in
the
amount
of
$2,000
inclusive
ofdisbursementsoralternatively,
15
percentof
the
amountof$25,000recovered
or
$ 3 ~ 7 5 0 .
Levantsubmits
that
the
approximately
227.5
hoUl'S
spent
by
Vigna
was
not
proportionateto
the
amount
involved
in
this
claim
and
therefore,
both
thehourlyrateclaimed
and
the
numberof
hoursshould
be
reducedsubstantially.
Levantalso
disputesthatVignaobuunedabetterresult
follo"Wing
trial
than
setout
in
hisoffers
to
settle
because
Vignaalwaysinsisted
on
acorrection
and
an
apology
to
be
published
on
Levant's.
website
in
aprominentposition
on
apennanentbasis.
Levant
further
submitsthat
many
of
the
s ~ t e m e n t s
thatVignaalleged
were
defWDatory
were
found
not
to
be
so
and
Levantsuccessfully
defended
against
a
number
of
the
allegations.
Levantsubmits
that
the
number
of
defamatoryallegations
made
by
Vignalengthened
the
trial
andmade
itmOre
complex.
Success
[4]
Vigna
was
ultimatelysuccessful
and
recoveredajudgment
in
the
amount
of
$25,000plus
an
order
thatthe
defamatory
publicatioosbe
removed
tXomLevant's
website.
[5J
Levant
was
successful
on
a
number
of
the
issues
us
a
nwnber
of
allegeddefamatory
comments
were
found
not
to
bedefamatory
or
were
subject
to
valid
defences.
However,the
substance
of
Levant's
publications
rela.ted
to
the
primary
allegations
that
Vigna
had
fibbed
to
the
Human
Rights
T r i b u n ~
when
he·
advised
the
Tri,OtmaJ
and
he
was
not
in
a
mental
statetoproceed
with
the
hearing,
that
he
illld
acted
with
bol.dfacedcontemp1
to
the
Tribunal,that
he
failed
to
honout
his
undertaking
&Ild
that
he
had
been
fiI:edfrom
the
Canadian
Human
Rights
Commission,
and
hadactedunethically
by
SWitching
evidence
at
ahearing.
[6J
Iconclude
that
Vigna
was
substantiallysuccessful
in
his
lawsuit
ontheprimary
allegations
of
defamation.However,he
was
not
completely
successful
as
punitive
damages
were
not
awarded
andsome
of
the
alleged
defamatory
sUltemenls
werefound
not
to
be
defamatory
or
were
subject
to
valid
defences.
AmountClaimed
and
Recovered
[7JVigo,a
claimed
$50,000
plusa
further$50,000
in
punitive
damages
and
recovered
$25,000,
which
is
substantially
lessthan
the
amount
claimed.
Comp1exitx
and
Importance
and
Proportionalif}:
[8J
The
subjectmatteroftbislibel
action
wasquite
complex
and
was
important
to
both
of
the
parties.
The
faqtua}
background
was
quiteextensive
as
the
publications
on
Levant'sblogrelated
to
legal
proceedingsbeforetheCanadiau
Human
Rights
Commission,
including
both
the
13eawnoDt
andthe
Lemire
Human
Rights
cases.
In
~ l d d i t j o n ,
Levaut
allegedthat
Vigna
acted
unet..hically
by
switcbJng
evidence
during
the
Beaumont
HUlTHill
Rights'
hearing.
[9J
The
legal
issuesinvolved
ill
a
defamation
action
are
more
complex
than
the
typical
lawsuit.
Alibel
trial
involves
findings
of
defamation
as
well
as
consideration
of
the
defenses
potentiallyapplicable
to
each
of
thepublicatjons,
i,ncluding
justification,
fair
comment,
and
whether
the
publications
are
protected
by
the
defence
cOfnmtmication
on
amatterofpublicinterest.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Giacomo Vigna v Ezra Levant (Costs)
Justice Smith of the ONSC awards over $32,500 in costs to Giacomo Vigna against Ezra Levant in an online defamation case.
1.1K
Reads
0
Readcasts
503
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
