Court File and Parties

Citation: Mulders v. Baggia, 2025 ONSC 4207 Court File No.: DC-25-01 St. Thomas Date: 2025-07-16 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Tadeene Maria Mulders and Eric Egudius Mulders, Plaintiffs/Respondents And: Ahmed Farook Baggia and Zaheda Banu Ahmed Baggia, Defendants/Appellants

Before: Tranquilli J.

Counsel: Sandra DiMeo, for the Plaintiffs/Respondents Vidit Deswal, for the Defendants/Appellants

Heard: In Writing

Endorsement

[1] By reasons reported at 2025 ONSC 3134 and released May 28, 2025, I dismissed the defendants’ motion to extend time to commence an appeal to the Divisional Court of the dismissal of their motion to set aside default judgment in the Small Claims Court. The parties now seek the court’s determination of costs.

[2] The plaintiffs seek their partial indemnity costs in the amount of $17,081.81. They submit they were successful in opposing this motion and the underlying motion that sought to set aside the default judgment of $35,000. They compromised the full extent of their losses arising from the misrepresentations or non-disclosure in the real estate transaction to bring this action in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The defendants’ adopted a consistent pattern of conduct of delay throughout this proceeding which threatened to undermine those efforts. The plaintiffs also underwent the expense of bringing a partially successful cross-motion to strike portions of the defendants’ affidavits filed in support of the motion to extend the time for appeal.

[3] The defendants note there was divided success on the plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of the defendants’ affidavits and that the motion to extend the time for appeal arose from a complex factual matrix and where the defendants sought to have liability determined on its merits rather than the default judgment obtained. They submit there should be no costs or that costs should be no more than partial indemnity.

[4] The plaintiffs were successful in opposing the motion and are presumptively entitled to their costs. In exercising my discretion for the fixing of costs in this matter, I have considered the factors set out in rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

[5] I can find no reason to depart from the general approach that costs at a partial indemnity scale follow the event. I have reviewed the plaintiffs’ bill of costs and find the timekeepers, hours spent, and rates charged are all within reason and appropriately focused on the motion material as opposed to the underlying litigation. The defendants did not provide a bill of costs or outline that would allow the court to consider the reasonable expectations of the parties. In this case, the partial indemnity costs sought of $17,081.81 are in keeping with the overriding principle of reasonableness.

[6] For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs/responding parties are entitled to their partial indemnity costs of this motion, fixed in the amount of $17,081.81 and payable forthwith by the defendants/moving parties.

Justice K. Tranquilli

Date: July 16, 2025