An Ontario Superior Court judge has given a final deadline to a man to pay more than $61,000 in accumulated court costs, ruling that his entire lawsuit will be dismissed if the payment is not made1. The decision, released on September 3, 2025, by Associate Justice Jolley, addresses a motion brought by several provincial and firearms safety-related defendants who sought to have the action by Leslie Arthur Swan thrown out due to a history of unpaid costs orders. Mr. Swan has been ordered to pay the outstanding amounts by September 22, 2025.
The case has a procedural history involving multiple court levels and a series of costs awards levied against Mr. Swan. The defendants in the action are separated into two groups. The first group, referred to as the “Crown defendants,” includes His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, the Chief Firearms Office of Ontario, Andrew Ferguson, and Bryan Martin. The second group, the “Fire Safety defendants,” consists of the Firearms Safety Education Services of Ontario, Don Bell, Cindy Baldrec, and Douglas Marshall. Both groups argued that Mr. Swan’s continued failure to satisfy the costs orders was grounds for dismissing his claim.
The accumulation of costs began over two years ago. On June 5, 2023, Justice Shin Doi of the Superior Court granted a motion brought by the defendants to strike Mr. Swan’s statement of claim, though she gave him permission to amend it. Following that motion, Justice Shin Doi ordered Mr. Swan to pay costs to the successful parties. The Crown defendants were awarded $22,890, and the Fire Safety defendants were awarded $14,121.96.
Mr. Swan sought to challenge Justice Shin Doi’s decision. His first attempt led him to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which on September 27, 2024, dismissed his appeal on jurisdictional grounds. The court’s ruling added to his financial obligations, as he was ordered to pay an additional $8,000 in costs to each of the two defendant groups, for a total of $16,000 from that appearance.
His next attempt to appeal the original decision of Justice Shin Doi took him to the Divisional Court. On February 7, 2025, a panel of that court considered his motion for leave to appeal. The court’s endorsement first granted Mr. Swan’s request to extend the time he had to seek leave to appeal. However, in the next paragraph, the court dismissed his motion for leave to appeal itself. This unsuccessful motion resulted in a third set of costs awards. The Divisional Court ordered Mr. Swan to pay $3,575 to the Crown defendants and $5,000 to the Fire Safety defendants.
In total, the unpaid orders amounted to $34,465 owed to the Crown defendants and $27,121.96 owed to the Fire Safety defendants. The combined outstanding total facing Mr. Swan at the time of the dismissal motion was $61,586.96. Despite these numerous orders from three different levels of court, none of the awarded costs had been paid.
Before Associate Justice Jolley, Mr. Swan argued that his lawsuit should not be dismissed for non-payment. His justification centered on his interpretation of the Divisional Court’s decision from February 7, 2025. He contended that because the court granted him an extension of time to seek leave to appeal before ultimately dismissing the motion for leave, the order was ambiguous. Mr. Swan believed he was entitled to a special hearing or an “explanatory attendance” before the Divisional Court panel to seek clarification on the implementation of their order. He argued that his right to appeal the costs component of Justice Shin Doi’s original ruling was still a live issue and that once he received this clarification, he would pay any costs he was required to pay.
Associate Justice Jolley systematically rejected Mr. Swan’s arguments in his reasons for decision. He outlined four primary difficulties with the plaintiff’s position. First, the judge found that there is no established court process for the kind of “explanatory attendance” that Mr. Swan was demanding. The rule Mr. Swan cited, Rule 59.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, allows parties to schedule an appointment to settle the form of a court order if there is a disagreement on its wording. It does not, the judge clarified, provide a mechanism for a party to ask a court to explain its decision after the order has already been finalized and issued.
Second, Associate Justice Jolley noted that Mr. Swan had already requested such a hearing from the Divisional Court and had been repeatedly denied. Court records showed that in March 2025, after Mr. Swan tried to schedule an appointment to settle the order, court staff informed him it was not necessary because all parties had already approved the order’s form. When Mr. Swan persisted, the court provided a more definitive response. On May 12, 2025, the court staff wrote to him stating that the judicial panel had reviewed his materials and directed that he be advised his interpretation of their order was “incorrect.” The communication explicitly stated, “Leave to appeal from Justice Shi [sic] Doi’s entire January 26, 2024 Order including costs was dismissed.” A further communication from the court on August 11, 2025, reiterated that since the order was issued and the panel’s advice had been sent, the court was “unaware of any further outstanding concern.”
Third, the judge found that the Divisional Court’s order was, in fact, clear on its face. He explained that Mr. Swan was misreading the endorsement. The court simply granted the necessary extension of time to allow it to hear the motion for leave to appeal, and then proceeded to dismiss that very motion. The decision was not ambiguous and did not preserve any further right of appeal.
Fourth, Associate Justice Jolley pointed out that Mr. Swan’s argument failed to explain why he had not paid any of the other outstanding costs. Even if his argument about the original costs order from Justice Shin Doi had some merit, it did not address his failure to pay the costs ordered by the Court of Appeal or the Divisional Court, neither of which he claimed to be appealing.
In his concluding remarks, Associate Justice Jolley addressed Mr. Swan’s statement that he would pay the costs “when directed.” The judge wrote, “He may now consider himself directed.” The court gave Mr. Swan until September 22, 2025, to pay the full $61,586.96. If the defendants do not receive the payment by that date, they are instructed to file a simple affidavit confirming non-payment with the court, after which an order will be issued formally dismissing Mr. Swan’s lawsuit.
In addition to the existing debts, Mr. Swan was also ordered to pay the defendants’ costs for bringing the dismissal motion itself. The judge found the sums of $7,500 for the Crown defendants and $8,000 for the Fire Safety defendants to be reasonable. These new amounts are due within 30 days of the order.
Read more Ontario legal news here.
