Karen Watt

This decision resolves the final outstanding issue of costs in a long-running civil action involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada, among other parties.

The court reviews the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the principles governing costs, ultimately awarding $25,000 in costs to RBC for steps taken after December 31, 2024.

The court declines to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the conduct of the applicant was problematic, it did not rise to the level required for such an award after the relevant date.

This decision fixes costs following a motion in long-running litigation involving the Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar and the Royal Bank of Canada.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to RBC and its counsel, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity and the applicant’s claim for costs.

The reasons review the history of the litigation, the conduct of the parties, and the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, ultimately awarding $16,500 in costs to be paid by Mr. Mylabathula to RBC.

The court addressed two motions: one to remove counsel for the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula due to a conflict of interest and the likelihood of becoming a witness, and another to strike the counterclaim brought by the Estate and Mr. Mylabathula against RBC and its counsel, Mr. Bowden.

The court ordered the removal of counsel, Mr. Callahan, finding he would inevitably be a witness regarding Mr. Mylabathula's knowledge of costs orders.

The counterclaim by the Estate was struck without leave to amend due to limitations and the inability of an estate to pursue defamation claims.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against Mr. Bowden was struck without leave due to absolute privilege and abuse of process.

Mr. Mylabathula's counterclaim against RBC was struck with limited leave to amend, requiring proper pleading of tort elements and a connection for discrimination claims.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action on a summary judgment motion, the successful defendants sought costs.

The court awarded the AG Defendants costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the RBC Defendants costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct, including lengthy delays, unnecessary motions, and pursuing claims that were not maintainable after the original plaintiff's death.

The court reduced the requested amounts due to the lack of detailed dockets in the Bills of Costs.

The appellants sued the respondent for false imprisonment and Charter breaches after the appellant was unconstitutionally denied accelerated parole review, resulting in her spending an extra 26 months in custody.

Following a court declaration of unconstitutionality, it took 43 days to process her release.

The appellants sought partial summary judgment for the 43-day delay, but the motion judge granted summary judgment to the respondent, finding no negligence or s. 7 Charter breach.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the delay claims but allowed the appeal in part to amend the order, clarifying that the 43-day period could still be claimed as part of the broader 26-month false imprisonment action.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim on two grounds: failure to pay three separate cost awards and an alleged fraudulent conveyance by the plaintiff's executor.

The court found that the outstanding cost awards had been paid, and the issue of fraudulent conveyance could not be determined on a motion to strike as it required a trial.

The court also noted that the failure to pass accounts was subject to an appeal and thus could not be relied upon.

Consequently, the motion to strike was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, two senior citizens, were detained and arrested at the Canada-U.S. border by the CBSA and subsequently the Niagara Police based on outdated CPIC information indicating they had breached undertakings.

The undertakings had been vacated weeks earlier, but the RCMP failed to update the CPIC system.

The court found that the RCMP breached its duty of care by failing to promptly remove the inaccurate information, and that the CBSA and Niagara Police breached their standard of care by failing to verify the CPIC information before arresting the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' section 9 Charter rights were also violated.

The court awarded general and punitive damages against the RCMP and Niagara Police, but dismissed the claims against the CBSA as statute-barred under the Customs Act.

This is a costs endorsement following a series of motions where the defendants (Royal Bank of Canada and others) and a non-party law firm (LD Law) were largely successful against the plaintiff.

The motions concerned a recusal application, a privilege claim regarding a property transfer from the deceased's estate, and a motion to compel the estate trustee to pass accounts.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants and full indemnity costs to LD Law, finding the plaintiff's positions meritless and contributing to litigation delay.

The plaintiff's claim of impecuniosity was rejected due to insufficient evidence and the principle that impecuniosity should not allow parties to disregard court rules with impunity.

The Estate of Sulochana Shanthakumar, through its trustee, brought a motion for the judge to recuse himself from hearing a privilege motion and a motion to pass accounts.

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) sought disclosure of the Estate Trustee's real estate lawyer's file and an order for the Estate to pass its accounts.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

It granted RBC's motion, ruling that the Estate Trustee had implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege over the real estate file by relying on legal advice to explain his conduct regarding the property transfer.

The court also found that RBC, as a judgment creditor, had standing under the Estates Act to compel the passing of the Estate's accounts, and ordered the accounts to be passed.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a finding that the defendant was liable for damages arising from Souphin Inlakhana’s 43-day imprisonment after a judicial decision made her eligible for accelerated parole review (APR).

The plaintiffs alleged false imprisonment, negligence, misfeasance in public office, and Charter breaches (ss. 7, 9, 11(i), 12).

The defendant sought dismissal of the motion.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion, finding no Charter violation or negligence in the administrative delay of release, as the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) and Parole Board of Canada (PBC) followed statutorily mandated processes within established timeframes, despite some delays.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the defendant on this specific claim.

The plaintiff moved for the production of redacted and unproduced documents from the defendant prior to examinations for discovery, related to his termination from Correctional Service Canada (CSC).

The defendant opposed, arguing prematurity, privilege, and public safety concerns.

The court found the motion was not premature and ordered the production of unedited CCTV footage, rejecting privacy and public safety concerns regarding inmate identities, citing relevance to the plaintiff's alleged conduct and the deemed undertaking rule.

However, the court dismissed the request for an unredacted email concerning a parking lot incident, finding it irrelevant to the pleadings.

It also dismissed the production of five emails claimed under litigation privilege, finding the defendant failed to prove litigation was reasonably apprehended at their creation.

One email, initially misdated, was found to be litigation privileged as it was created after litigation commenced.

Two emails related to security clearances were also deemed irrelevant to the remaining pleaded issues.

The plaintiff sought damages for false imprisonment and Charter violations after being denied accelerated parole review due to the retrospective application of the Abolition of Early Parole Act, which was later found unconstitutional.

The Crown brought a motion to strike the claim, arguing government immunity for legislative acts.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff pleaded sufficient material facts that, if true, could establish the government acted in bad faith by knowingly enacting unconstitutional legislation in violation of s. 11(i) of the Charter.