Is a self-represented litigant entitled to recover costs from the other party?

[72] “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”: see Fong v. Chan, supra, at paragraph [24].

[73] Nevertheless, a self-represented litigant does not have “an automatic right to recover costs. The matter remains fully within the discretion of the trial judge. . . . The trial judge maintains a discretion to make the appropriate costs award, including denial of costs”: see Fong v. Chan, supra, at paragraph [25].

[74] “. . . 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 . . . all litigants suffer a loss of time through their involvement in the legal process. The self-represented litigant should not recover costs for the time and effort that any litigant would have to devote to the case. 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”: see Fong v. Chan, supra, at paragraph [26] (emphasis added).

[75] “. . . a self-represented lay litigant should receive only a ‘moderate’ or ‘reasonable’ allowance for the loss of time devoted to preparing and presenting the case. This excludes routine awards on a per diem basis to litigants who would ordinarily be in attendance at court in any event”: see Fong v. Chan, ibid.