CITATION: Rajpara v. Rajpara, 2021 ONSC 946
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 20-410 DATE: 20210204
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Trimble and Gomery JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHANDNI PRANAVKUMAR RAJPARA
Gabriella Deokaran, for the Applicant
Appellant
– and –
PRANAVKUMAR RAJPARA
James MacDonald, for the Respondent
Respondent
HEARD (by videoconference): February 4, 2021
Sachs J. (Orally)
[1] This appeal was abandoned by the appellant. The respondent is requesting costs. The only issue before us today is the respondent’s request for costs.
[2] At the hearing, both the appellant and her counsel of record appeared. The appellant indicated to the court that she did not wish her counsel of record to make submissions on her behalf on the question of costs. She wished to address us directly.
[3] The court made it clear that if at some point the appellant did want to consult with her counsel of record, she should let the court know and we would break in order to allow her to do so. The appellant made no such request. At some point during the appellant’s submissions, the appellant’s counsel of record left the hearing. The court inquired of the appellant as to whether she was prepared to continue in the absence of her counsel of record and the appellant stated that she did wish to continue. She did not want the proceedings to be delayed any further.
[4] The respondent requests full reimbursements for his legal fees and disbursements incurred in relation to the appeal. He does so on the basis that this appeal had no merit and that the sole reason the appeal was brought was to delay the sale of the matrimonial home. As a result, he is requesting $4,526.25 plus HST in fees plus $100 in disbursements.
[5] The appellant submits that there should be no order as to costs. According to her, it was her lawyer’s fault that the appeal was brought and that when she told her lawyer to abandon the appeal, her lawyer failed to follow her instructions. She also stated that she has no income other than the moneyshe receives from OSDP. Thus, she cannot afford to pay a costs award.
[6] We agree with the respondent that this appeal has no merit and that the appeal proceedings were used as a device to delay the sale of the matrimonial home. On this basis, he is entitled to substantial indemnity costs.
[7] In view of the fact that the appeal was a straight-forward one, that there were no materials filed other than the notice of appeal and bill of costs and that the only court appearances consisted of two case conferences totaling 50 minutes and today’s appearance totaling 2 hours, we find that a reasonable figure to fix by way of costs is $3,500 all inclusive In our view, the appellant’s alleged difficulties with her counsel of record are matters that she can pursue, should she wish to do so, outside of these proceedings.
[8] Therefore, we are ordering that the appellant pay to the respondent his costs of this abandoned appeal fixed in the amount of $3,500 all inclusive. These costs shall be paid from the appellant’s share of the proceeds realized from the sale of the matrimonial home.
___________________________ Sachs J.
I agree
Trimble J.
I agree
Gomery J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 4, 2021
Date of Release: February 9, 2021
CITATION: Rajpara v. Rajpara, 2021 ONSC 946
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 20-410 DATE: 20210204
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Trimble and Gomery JJ.
BETWEEN:
CHANDNI PRANAVKUMAR RAJPARA
Appellant
– and –
PRANAVKUMAR RAJPARA
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Oral Reasons for Judgment: February 4, 2021
Date of Release: February 9, 2021