|
Mental Health - Substitute Decisions Act. Vrantsidis v. Vrantsidis
In Vrantsidis v. Vrantsidis (Ont CA, 2023) the Court of Appeal considered cost awards to a 's.3 counsel' under the Substitute Decisions Act (SDA): ... [6] He also argues that the application judge erred, contrary to s. 3(2) of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 30, by ordering him to pay the costs of s. 3 counsel.
.....
[12] Moreover, it was within her discretion to order the appellant to pay part of those costs: see e.g., Childs v. Childs, 2017 ONCA 516, at paras. 101-104, leave to appeal refused, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 414. Section 3(2) of the Substitute Decisions Act does not provide otherwise. In declaring that the person who has received legal representation pursuant to s. 3(1)(a) is “responsible for legal fees”, s. 3(2) addresses responsibility for legal costs as between a solicitor and a client not eligible for legal aid but does not purport to define or limit responsibility for party and party costs after litigation. Nor does it fetter the court’s exercise of its discretion to make an appropriate costs order under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43. Although Mrs. Vrantsidis is responsible for the legal fees pursuant to s. 3(2) of the Substitute Decisions Act, she is entitled to the benefit of the costs order made after litigation in her favour to assist in paying those costs. The trial judge reasonably exercised her discretion in the circumstances of this case.
|
