SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

Court File No.: Orangeville CV-06- 06-3524
Date: 2012-01-04

RE: Parshan Singh Johal; Surjit Kaur Athwal-Johal

• and -

Dr. Janica Manchanda D.D.S. also known as (aka) Janica Manchanda aka Janica Manchanda Singh aka Janica Singh Manchanda

Before: Justice Thomas M. Dunn

Counsel:
M.N.K. Toor, for the Plaintiffs
B. H. Sachdeva, for the Defendant

ORDER ON COSTS

[1] This matter came before me for trial October 19 and 20, 2010. At that time, I gave brief reasons for judgment orally and invited submissions on costs. The respondent wished to obtain a copy of my oral reasons and did so but not, apparently, in a timely fashion. As a result, cost submissions were delayed.

[2] In my oral judgment, I expressed concern and, during the trial, dismay at some of the conduct of the plaintiff as reflected in the evidence. That conduct, I opined, might be reflected in costs. In any case, I had determined by the end of the trial that the plaintiff’s approach to this litigation precluded any costs in his favour.

[3] I have read and considered the submissions of the defendant requesting that costs be allowed to the defendant in the amount of some $35,000.00. Those submissions are persuasive, but while tempting, the conduct of the plaintiff was not so egregious as to justify an order for costs in this amount. The trial was longer than necessary by reason of that conduct and it was more complex given the nature of the efforts of the plaintiff to collect the indebtedness in a manner that should not be tolerated by this court.

[4] The plaintiff wrote ill advised letters of a threatening nature, and attempted to undermine the defendant’s professional reputation. I have read and considered the submissions made by the plaintiff’s counsel. The failure of the plaintiff to provide documentation in his possession until well on into the litigation and on the eve of trial has not been explained. The male plaintiff’s attempt to undermine the reputation of the defendant is in itself egregious. At the same time, the plaintiff was successful at trial in proving the indebtedness and received judgment for what I conceived as a proper claim. The indebtedness is based on a loan made to the defendant. The submissions of the plaintiff’s solicitor that the plaintiff could honestly believe that there had been a fraud by the defendant on OSAP is, in my opinion, unsupported by any reasonable view of the evidence.

[5] While the plaintiff has succeeded at trial and is entitled to judgment for some $42,000.00, I believe that this is one of those rare cases where substantial costs should be awarded to the defendant. I assess those costs on partial indemnity basis in the amount of $17,000.00. That sum is inclusive of disbursements and tax. The defendant will be entitled to offset this amount against the judgment amount.

Dunn J.

DATE: January 4, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: Orangeville CV-06- 06-3524
DATE: 2012-01-04

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO RE: Parshan Singh Johal; Surjit Kaur Athwal-Johal - and - Dr. Janica Manchanda D.D.S. also known as (aka) Janica Manchanda aka Janica Manchanda Singh aka Janica Singh Manchanda BEFORE: Justice Thomas M. Dunn COUNSEL: M.N.K. Toor, for the Plaintiffs B. H. Sachdeva, for the Defendant ORDER ON COSTS Dunn J.

DATE: January 4, 2012