Skidmore v. Blackmore (1995), 55 B.C.A.C. 191 (CA);
90 W.A.C. 191
MLB headnote and full text
Roger Ivan Skidmore and Claire Frances Guest (plaintiffs/appellants) v. Haydn J. Blackmore (defendant/respondent)
(CA012548)
Indexed As: Skidmore et al. v. Blackmore
British Columbia Court of Appeal
McEachern, C.J.B.C., Macfarlane, Cumming, Gibbs and Finch, JJ.A.
February 16, 1995.
Summary:
The plaintiffs’ action for damages was successful. The trial judge refused to award the plaintiffs costs because they were self-represented lay litigants. See [1990] 5 W.W.R. 634; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 112. The plaintiffs appealed the refusal to award costs.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.
Civil Rights – Topic 8311
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Application – Nongovernmental or private interference – Successful self-represented lay litigants argued that to deny them party and party costs in excess of their disbursements would be discriminatory and contrary to s. 15 of the Charter – The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the Charter was inapplicable to this issue – See paragraphs 58 to 64.
Practice – Topic 6986
Costs – Entitlement – Bars – Litigant acting on own behalf – The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that a successful self-represented lay litigant may be awarded costs in excess of disbursements, under Appendix B of the Supreme Court Rules, to be assessed by the Registrar – See paragraph 57.
Practice – Topic 7006
Costs – Party and party costs – Purpose of party and party costs – The British Columbia Court of Appeal referred to the functions of party and party costs – See paragraph 37.
Practice – Topic 7006
Costs – Party and party costs – Purpose of party and party costs – The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the view that costs were awarded solely to indemnify the successful litigant for legal fees and disbursements incurred was now outdated – Although it was true that costs were awarded to indemnify the successful litigant for legal fees and disbursements incurred, it was also true that costs were awarded to encourage or to deter certain types of conduct – See paragraphs 28, 51.
Practice – Topic 7050
Costs – Party and party costs – Entitlement – Successful party not represented by counsel – [See
Practice – Topic 6986
].
Practice – Topic 7103
Costs – Party and party costs – Special orders – For reprehensible or inefficient conduct by party – The British Columbia Court of Appeal stated that in ordinary circumstances, merely refusing a settlement offer was not conduct that should give rise to special costs – See paragraph 56.
Cases Noticed:
Kendall v. Hunt (No. 2) (1979), 16 B.C.L.R. 295 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 8].
British Columbia v. Worthington (Can.) Inc. (1988), 29 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].
Fullerton et al. v. Matsqui (District) et al. (1992), 14 B.C.A.C. 153; 26 W.A.C. 153; 74 B.C.L.R.(2d) 311 (C.A.), not folld. [para. 18].
Buckland v. Watts, [1970] 1 Q.B. 27; [1969] 2 All E.R. 985 (C.A.), consd. [para. 21].
Harold v. Smith (1860), 5 H. & N. 381; 157 E.R. 1229, consd. [para. 24].
London Scottish Benefit Society v. Chorley, [1881-1885] All E.R. 1111; 13 Q.B. 872 (C.A.), consd. [para. 30].
R. v. K.G.B., [1993] 1 S.C.R. 740; 148 N.R. 241; 61 O.A.C. 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 257, appld. [para. 42].
Deacon v. R., [1947] S.C.R. 531; 89 C.C.C. 1, refd to. [para. 42].
Myers v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1965] A.C. 1001 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 42].
R. v. Smith (A.L.), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 915; 139 N.R. 323; 55 O.A.C. 321; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 590, refd to. [para. 42].
Houweling Nurseries Ltd. v. Fisons Western Corp. (1988), 37 B.C.L.R.(2d) 2 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].
Coronation Insurance Co. et al. v. Florence et al. (1992), 19 B.C.A.C. 90; 34 W.A.C. 90; 73 B.C.L.R.(2d) 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].
Calderbank v. Calderbank, [1975] 3 All E.R. 333 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].
Higgs v. Fainstein (1992), 72 B.C.L.R.(2d) 24 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].
McKinney v. University of Guelph et al., [1990] 3 S.C.R. 229; 118 N.R. 1; 45 O.A.C. 1; 76 D.L.R.(4th) 545; 2 C.R.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 59].
Dolphin Delivery Ltd. v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 580, Peterson and Alexander, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573; 71 N.R. 83; 33 D.L.R.(4th) 174; 38 C.C.L.T. 184; 25 C.R.R. 321; [1987] 1 W.W.R. 577; 87 C.L.L.C. 14,002, refd to. [para. 60].
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Dagenais et al. (1994), 175 N.R. 1; 76 O.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 61].
Statutes Noticed:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 15 [paras. 16, 19].
Rules of Court (B.C.), rule 37 [para. 28]; rule 37(23) [paras. 6, 37]; rule 37(24) [para. 37]; rule 57 [paras. 20-22]; rule 57(9) [paras. 6, 37]; Appendix B [paras. 20-22, 36, 40, 45, 53, 56].
Counsel:
C.F. Guest, in person;
B.M. Caldwell, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on January 18, 1995, before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Macfarlane, Cumming, Gibbs and Finch, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Cumming, J.A., on February 16, 1995.
