Cost argument for Self Represented Litigant

[LEGAL ADMIN]

ADDENDUM: SUBMISSIONS ON COSTS
(your party name is Plaintiff, Defendant, Applicant, or Petitioner etc...)

May it please the Court:

1. The ( your party name ) respectfully submit this Addendum to address the issue of costs. If the Court finds in our favor, then as the successful parties opposing the (opposing party name) (action), the (your party name) seek an award of costs in our favour. The ( your party name ) request costs under the Rules of Court:

Rule 14 - Costs - (generally) and:

14-1 How costs assessed generally
(1) If costs are payable to a party under these Supreme Court Civil Rules or by order, those costs must be assessed as party and party costs in accordance with Appendix B unless any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) the parties consent to the amount of costs and file a certificate of costs setting out that amount;

(b) the court orders that

(I) the costs of the proceeding be assessed as special costs, or

(ii) the costs of an application, a step or any other matter in the proceeding be assessed as special costs in which event, subject to subrule (10), costs in relation to all other applications, steps and matters in the proceeding must be determined and assessed under this rule in accordance with this subrule;

(c) the court awards lump sum costs for the proceeding and fixes those costs under subrule (15) in an amount the court considers appropriate;

(d) the court awards lump sum costs in relation to an application, a step or any other matter in the proceeding and fixes those costs under subrule (15), in which event, subject to subrule (10), costs in relation to all other applications, steps and matters in the proceeding must be determined and assessed under this rule in accordance with this subrule;
…

Costs to follow event
(9) Subject to subrule (12), costs of a proceeding must be awarded to the successful party unless the court otherwise orders.

2. The ( your party name ) are self-represented litigants. The law in Canada is clear that successful self-represented litigants may recover costs, though not on the same basis as represented parties. The (your party name) have devoted substantial time and effort to the work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct litigation, and have incurred significant opportunity costs by foregoing remunerative activity.

I. THE GOVERNING LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A. Self-Represented Litigants May Recover Costs

3. The leading Canadian authority on costs for self-represented litigants is the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Fong v. Chan, 1999 CanLII 2052 (ON CA) . In that case, the Court held that self-represented litigants may be awarded costs, subject to the Court's discretion. 

4. As the Ontario Court of Appeal stated in Fong, A rule precluding recovery of costs, in whole or in part, by self-represented litigants would deprive the court of a potentially useful tool at paragraph 24, as follows:

[24] A rule precluding recovery of costs, in whole or in part, by self-represented litigants would deprive the court of a potentially useful tool to encourage settlements and to discourage or sanction inappropriate behaviour. For example, an opposite party should not be able to ignore the reasonable settlement offer of a self-represented litigant with impunity from the usual costs consequences. Nor, in my view, is it desirable to immunize such a party from costs awards designed to sanction inappropriate behaviour simply because the other party is a self-represented litigant.

5. The Court recognized that the fundamental purposes of modern cost rules - to indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlements, and discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour - are all fostered by allowing the trial judge a discretion to award costs to self-represented litigants. 

B. The Limitation: Not on the Same Basis as Retained Counsel

6. However, the Court in Fong, supre paragraph 26, established a critical limitation, as follows:
"self-represented litigants, be they legally trained or not, are not entitled to costs calculated on the same basis as those of the litigant who retains counsel."

7. The Court further clarified, continuing with paragraph 26, as follows:
"Costs should only be awarded to those lay litigants who can demonstrate that they devoted time and effort to do the work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct the litigation, and that as a result, they incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity."

8. The self-represented litigant should not recover costs for the time and effort that any litigant would have to devote to the case. The award is limited to "lawyer-like" work that generated an opportunity cost. 

C. The British Columbia Position

9. The British Columbia Court of Appeal addressed this issue in Skidmore v. Blackmore, 1995 CanLII 1537 (BC CA) . The Court held that a successful self-represented lay litigant may be awarded costs in excess of disbursements. 

10. In Skidmore, the Court at paragraph 52, stated the following:
"There are good reasons for allowing self-represented lay litigants to receive the benefit of recent developments in the law of costs. There is no logical reason for allowing a self-represented solicitor to claim costs under Appendix B of the [British Columbia] Supreme Court Rules, while denying the same to a self-represented lay litigant." 

11. The Court observed that the view that costs were awarded solely to indemnify the successful litigant for legal fees and disbursements was now outdated. While costs are awarded to indemnify, they are also awarded to encourage or deter certain types of conduct. 

II. APPLICATION TO THE PLAINTIFFS' CIRCUMSTANCES

A. The ( your party name here) Have Devoted Time and Effort to Lawyer-Like Work

12. The (your party name ) (your names) , are self-represented litigants. They have devoted substantial time and effort to the work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct litigation. This includes:
a) Drafting Pleadings: ( name the pleadings ) (example Form 33 Application Response);
b) Preparing Affidavit Evidence: The (your party name) prepared ( example Affidavit #1 of ______, sworn _______, with Exhibits A through M;
c) Legal Research and Submissions: The ( your party name ) researched and drafted comprehensive Written Submissions opposing the ( pleadings ) example Application to Strike, including detailed legal argument and Authorities;
d) Preparing for Oral Presentation: The (your party name) prepared an oral presentation to the Court;
e) Organizing Documentary Evidence: The ( your party name ) organized transcripts, emails, court orders, and other exhibits;
f) Managing the Litigation: The (your party name) managed all aspects of this proceeding, including service, filing, and case management.

13. The work performed by the ( your party name ) is precisely the type of work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained to conduct litigation.

B. The (your party name) Have Incurred Opportunity Costs

14. The ( your party name ) have incurred significant opportunity costs by foregoing remunerative activity:
a) ( your name ) : took time off work for document research, document creation, document draft printing, final document printing, signing, scanning, serving, affidavit swearing, filing documents for the Court proceedings, resulting in lost wages and lost opportunity costs;
b) ( your other party's name ) : has also devoted substantial time to this litigation, including time away from his business and personal projects;
c) Litigation Management: Both ( your party name )s have devoted countless hours to managing this litigation, time that could have been spent on remunerative activity.

15. These opportunity costs are directly attributable to the (opposing party name ) (example Defendants') conduct and the necessity of opposing the (action) (example Application to Strike).

C. If the ( your party name ) Have Been Successful

16. If the (your party name) have been successful in opposing the ( action ) ( example Application to Strike). If the Court grants the relief sought in the ( your party name ) (example Application Responseb) - dismissal of the ( action ) ( example Application to Strike) - the ( your party name )will be the successful parties.

17. As the successful parties, the ( your party name ) are entitled to seek costs.

III. THE APPROPRIATE QUANTUM OF COSTS

18. The ( your party name ) acknowledge that, as self-represented litigants, they are not entitled to costs calculated on the same basis as represented litigants. However, the ( your party name ) submit that an award is appropriate in the circumstances.

19. The ( your party name ) propose the following approach to quantification:

A. Hourly Rate

20. The hourly rate for self-represented litigants is within the Court's discretion. In Roach v. Lashley, 2018 ONSC 2086, the Court awarded $75 per hour for trial preparation, noting that the litigant demonstrated "a surprising degree of skill." 

21. The ( your party name ) submit that an hourly rate of $75 per hour is reasonable in the circumstances, given:
a) The complexity of the legal issues;
b) The quality of the Plaintiffs' written and oral submissions;
c) The substantial documentary evidence organized and presented;
d) The Plaintiffs' demonstrated legal research and drafting skills.

B. Hours Claimed

22. The ( your party name ) estimate the following time was devoted to opposing the ( action ) ( example Application to Strike ):

Activity Hours
Drafting Form 33 Application Response 30
Preparing Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits 25
Researching and drafting Written Submissions 25
Preparing Oral Presentation 10
Organizing documentary evidence 10
TOTAL 100

23. The ( your party name ) submit that 100 hours is a reasonable estimate of the time spent on lawyer-like work in this Application.

C. Disbursements

24. The ( your party name ) claim the following disbursements:

Item Amount
Filing fees – Affidavit in support of the Form 33 Application Response $40.00
Scanning, Photocopying, Printing, Tabbing and Binding $360.00
TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $400.00

D. Total Claim

25. The Plaintiffs' total claim for costs is:

Category Amount
"Lawyer-like" Work Fee (100 hours × $75/hour) $7,500.00
Disbursements $400.00
TOTAL $7,900.00

IV. FACTORS SUPPORTING AN AWARD

26. The ( your party name ) submit that the following factors support an award of costs in their favour:

A. The ( your party name ) Were Successful

27. The ( your party name ) have been successful in opposing the Application to Strike. Costs should follow the event.


B. The ( opposing party name ) s' Conduct Was Unreasonable
28. List the reasons




SCHEDULE OF AUTHORITIES

Authority Key Principle
a) Fong v. Chan, 1999 CanLII 2052 (ON CA) Self-represented litigants may recover costs; not on same basis as represented parties; must demonstrate lawyer-like work and opportunity cost
b) Skidmore v. Blackmore, 1995 CanLII 1537 (BC CA) Successful self-represented lay litigants may be awarded costs in excess of disbursements
c) Roach v. Lashley Hourly rate of $75/hour for self-represented litigants reasonable
d) Supreme Court Civil Rules, Rule 14-1 Costs in the discretion of the Court
e) Canadian Judicial Council Statement of Principles on Self-Represented Litigants Self-represented litigants entitled to fairness and access to justice


Dated at ___________, British Columbia, this_____ day of _______, 2026.


( your name )
Self-Represented ( your party )