Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2587 commenced an application against respondent Youjun Long in January 2023, seeking orders to stop his alleged disruptive and threatening behaviour toward residents, contractors, and the board.
• Long moved out of the building in July 2023, rendering the application moot and prompting the applicant to formally abandon the proceeding in March 2025.
• Once the notice of abandonment was delivered, Long brought a motion seeking $208,803.09 in costs, a figure he partially reduced at the hearing by withdrawing certain heads of damages.
• Central to the court's analysis was whether the costs claimed — including fees paid to a Beijing law firm and hundreds of hours of the respondent's own thinking time — were reasonably incurred in defence of the application.
• Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure grants the court discretion to award or withhold costs where an application is abandoned, taking into account whether the proceeding was reasonably commenced.
• Costs for the foreign law firm were disallowed as there was no evidence the lawyer was licensed to practise in Ontario and no explanation of what work was performed in relation to the application.

Facts of the case

On 17 January 2023, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2587 issued a notice of application against unit owner Youjun Long. The applicant sought court orders directing Long to cease behaviour that allegedly disturbed residents, unit owners, and contractors — including yelling, threatening, harassing, and videotaping individuals without their consent. It also sought to restrict Long from communicating directly with contractors and the board of directors, requiring him to do so only in writing. The applicant stated that complaints about Long's conduct had been received since 2018, with the behaviour escalating in frequency and severity from 2021 onward. Documented complaints included verbally abusing security guards, acting aggressively toward contractors and residents, harassing gym users, and making false accusations of having been assaulted. Long disputed all of these allegations.

Long filed a notice of appearance and a document he titled a "statement of defence and claim" in April 2023. No affidavits were exchanged and no cross-examinations took place. In July 2023, Long moved out of the building, at which point the application became unnecessary. The applicant wrote to Long on 31 August 2024 advising that it intended to abandon the application without costs. On 14 January 2025, Long responded with a list of his claimed damages. The applicant delivered its formal notice of abandonment in March 2025, after which Long brought a motion for costs of the abandoned application.

Applicable rule and legal framework

The governing provision was Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that where an application is abandoned or deemed to have been abandoned, a respondent on whom the notice of application was served is entitled to costs, unless the court orders otherwise. The court noted its established discretion to decline awarding costs where an application was abandoned through no fault of the applicant, provided it was reasonable to have commenced the proceeding in the first place.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Long sought $208,803.09 in total costs. At the hearing, he withdrew his claims for moving costs, increased rent, rental agency fees, loss of rental income, and costs relating to the subsequent sale of his unit — heads of damages totalling $43,355.50 and $20,763.40 respectively — while maintaining a claim for a $2,100 moving disbursement. The remaining claims included $48,825 in legal fees paid to the Hehong Weiyu Law Firm for Oversea Consular Protection Service, based in Beijing, China, and $83,700 representing 558 hours of the respondent's own time spent thinking about the case from January 2023 to May 2026 at $150 per hour. A further amount of approximately $10,049.37 related to an additional 45 hours of thinking, evidence preparation, further legal fees to the Chinese lawyer, and miscellaneous disbursements. Other claimed disbursements included driving to and from Ottawa and various filing fees.

The court declined to award the Chinese law firm's fees. There was no evidence that the lawyer was licensed to practise in Ontario, no explanation of what work was done, and the invoice — which was not in English — showed the bulk of entries postdating the applicant's letter advising of its intention to withdraw. The court also noted that the firm's billing practices, including a four-hour minimum and billing for lunch, were matters the respondent could choose to accept but could not pass on to the applicant. As for Long's claim for 583 hours of personal thinking time, the court found that no work was done and no proceedings were advancing after April 2023, making that time non-recoverable.

The court accepted that it was reasonable for the applicant to have abandoned the application once Long vacated the building, as the issues had become moot. On the question of whether it was reasonable to have commenced the application in the first place, the court noted it had no evidence from either party on that point. Long argued the application was retaliatory, filed in response to his complaint before the Human Rights Tribunal, but the court found no evidence to support that contention.

What the court did allow were the costs Long was concededly entitled to: time to prepare and file his notice of appearance — including the statement of defence, treated as standing in for a future affidavit — and time and filing fees associated with the motion for costs itself. The applicant did not dispute the claimed rate of $150 per hour.

Ruling and overall outcome

Associate Justice Jolley awarded Long two hours at $150 per hour for preparation of the notice of appearance and statement of defence ($300), plus his $172 filing fee, for a total of $472 in respect of the application. For the costs motion, the court awarded two hours to prepare the motion and two hours of attendance time at $150 per hour, plus the $339 filing fee, for a total of $939. Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2587 was ordered to pay Long a total of $1,411.00 in costs — a fraction of the $208,803.09 originally sought.