COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Walia v. 2155982 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONCA 538

DATE: 20200826

DOCKET: C66651

Huscroft, Zarnett and Coroza JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Surendra Walia

Plaintiff (Appellant)

and

2155982 Ontario Inc., Prem Chand Sharma, Agim Mollaj and Armoclan Engineering Ltd.

Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel:

Pathik Baxi, for the appellant

Gregory Weedon and Melissa Truong, for the respondents

Heard: in writing

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Pamela Hebner of the Superior Court of Justice, dated August 23, 2018, with reasons reported at 2019 ONSC 1059.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] By reasons dated August 4, 2020, the appeal in this matter was dismissed. In our reasons for decision, we invited written submissions from the parties as to costs of the appeal.

[2] The respondents seek costs on a partial indemnity basis in the sum of $16, 535.61. They contend that they were completely successful on the appeal and that their costs in preparing for the appeal increased because the appellant filed a reply factum that raised new arguments that were not made in the court below. The respondents argue that in order to respond to these new arguments, they were obliged to seek direction from a case management judge and were afforded the right to file a supplementary responding factum.

[3] For his part, the appellant agrees that costs should be awarded to the respondent. However, he argues that his decision to file a reply factum should not elevate the costs imposed by this court. The appellant submits that he did not raise new or novel arguments and that there were only two issues before the court and both issues were addressed in all of the written materials. He submits that costs should be fixed at $5,000.

[4] The respondent is entitled to costs of the appeal as the successful party. Although we accept that the respondents were obliged to respond to the appellant’s 29-page reply factum, we view the amount claimed by the respondents as excessive. This appeal involved two issues that were familiar to the parties because they were identical to the issues argued in the court below. The resolution of this appeal did not involve considering any new or novel arguments raised by the appellant in his reply factum. We fix the respondents costs at $7,500, inclusive of disbursements and all applicable taxes.

“Grant Huscroft J.A.”

“B. Zarnett J.A.”

“S. Coroza J.A.”