Raj Kanwal Anand

This endorsement addresses costs following the dismissal of a negligence claim brought by the plaintiff against his former solicitor.

The defendant, having successfully defended the claim, sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff failed to submit any costs submissions.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs, fixed at $152,851.50, inclusive of fees, taxes, and disbursements, payable within 60 days.

The court found the amount reasonable, considering the complexity of the solicitor's negligence claim, the serious allegations of fraud made against the defendant, the plaintiff's unrealistic expectations, and his failure to cooperate during litigation.

Following a prior order dismissing the plaintiff’s action for delay, the court addressed written submissions on costs brought by the successful moving defendants.

The defendants sought recovery of both the motion costs and the costs of the action, with some defendants requesting substantial indemnity costs.

The court confirmed that costs were payable but declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the plaintiff’s delay warranted dismissal of the action, it did not justify punitive costs.

The court reduced the amounts claimed as excessive and awarded partial indemnity costs in reduced sums reflecting reasonableness and the limited complexity of the motion and proceedings.

The moving defendants sought dismissal of a civil action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, arising from a 2003 real estate transaction and alleging solicitor’s negligence and unpaid purchase funds, had remained largely inactive for over seven years.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, particularly given the plaintiff’s failure to advance the case despite prior administrative dismissal and reinstatement with directions to schedule a case conference.

Prejudice was established due to the death of a key participant and witness whose testimony was central to the disputed arrangements between the parties.

Balancing the plaintiff’s right to proceed against the defendants’ right to a fair trial, the court concluded that the defendants’ ability to defend the action had been irreparably compromised.