Costs Against the Crown (POA/Criminal)

Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 ©
Date Retrieved:	2024-11-27
CLNP Page ID:	1799
Page Categories:	[Provincial Offences]
Citation:	Costs Against the Crown (POA/Criminal), CLNP 1799, <4f>, retrieved on 2024-11-27
Editor:	Sharvey
Last Updated:	2021/11/08

Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076

Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today

Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33

129 (1) Where an appeal is heard and determined or is abandoned or is dismissed for want of prosecution, the court may make any order with respect to costs that it considers just and reasonable.

(2) Where the court orders the appellant or respondent to pay costs, the order shall direct that the costs be paid to the clerk of the trial court, to be paid by the clerk to the person entitled to them, and shall fix the period within which the costs shall be paid.

(3) Costs ordered to be paid under this section by a person other than a prosecutor acting on behalf of the Crown shall be deemed to be a fine for the purpose of enforcing its payment. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 129.

R. v. Kocet, 2016 ONCJ 329 (CanLII)

[6] The recent decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal in Singh and Fercan have clarified the law with respect to costs awards against the Crown in criminal cases. Costs awards, in the rare circumstances where they are appropriate, are integrally connected to the court’s control of its trial process, and are intended as a means of disciplining and discouraging behaviour. There is a compensatory element to such awards, but the concepts related to costs awarded in civil litigation do not apply in the criminal context. The reasons for costs awards in those two systems are different. The Crown in a criminal case is not an ordinary litigant, and an award of costs against the Crown in the criminal context does not focus on the indemnity. In quantifying a costs award against the Crown in a criminal context, the court must exercise discretion having regard for the fact that the funds are coming from the public purse and that the purpose of the costs award against the Crown in a criminal context is to provide a reasonable portion of the cost that an accused incurs to secure his or her Charter rights.

R. v. 1820419 Ontario Inc., 2013 ONCJ 10 (CanLII)

[14] In R. v. Garcia, at para. 13, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that there are generally two broad categories of cases where orders of costs against the Crown have been made. The first category consists of cases where the conduct of the prosecution is said to merit sanction in the form of an award of costs. The second category consists of cases where there has been no Crown misconduct, but other “exceptional circumstances exist such that fairness requires that the individual litigant not carry the financial burden flowing from his or her involvement in the litigation”.

...

[21] Section 129 (a) of the POA grants the court discretion to make any order with respect to costs that it considers “just and reasonable”. In R. v. Trask, supra, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the intent of the Criminal Code provisions dealing with costs on summary conviction appeals was to provide judges with broad discretion. I do not agree that absent Crown misconduct, the court’s discretion to award costs in provincial offences appeals is limited to test cases. To so hold would be to unduly restrict the plain language and intent of s. 129 of the POA.