Court File and Parties

CITATION: Khachatryan v. Sookedeo, 2017 ONSC 1548

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 171/16

DATE: 20170309

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO (DIVISIONAL COURT)

RE: KAREN KHACHATRYAN AND RAFAYEL KHACHATRYAN (Appellants/Defendants) - and - MILLECENT SOOKEDEO AND SEENAUTH SOOKEDEO (Respondents/Plaintiffs)

BEFORE: Justice Swinton

COUNSEL: Jonathan Kleiman, for the Appellants/Defendants Solomon Ross Fischhoff, for Millecent Sookedeo, Respondent/Plaintiff

HEARD AT TORONTO: in writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] The respondent Millecent Sookedeo succeeded in the appeal. The appeal of the Vais defendants was abandoned during oral argument. Accordingly, Mrs. Sookedeo and the Vais are entitled to their costs. The issue is whether they should be awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $21,001.05.

[2] In my view, the respondents should receive costs at a higher scale than partial indemnity for a number of reasons.

[3] First, the respondents made offers to settle the appeal. While there is not a significant amount of compromise in those offers, the appellants concede that the result achieved was as good as their offers.

[4] Second, the Vais appeal was abandoned during the hearing.

[5] Third, the appellants filed a bald Notice of Appeal and a factum with a large number of arguments that were, for the most part, abandoned at the hearing. Nevertheless, the respondents were required to respond to the arguments in the factum, and the task was made more complex by the way in which the material was presented.

[6] However, I would not award the full amount sought by the respondents, given the principle of proportionality. This was a Small Claims Court appeal, and the judgments in issue were for $33,758.96 and $3,876.33.

[7] Accordingly, I order costs to the respondents fixed at $15,000.00 all in, an amount that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Swinton J.

DATE: March 9, 2017