COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-483527

DATE: 20140122

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: The Equitable Life Insurance Company of Canada, Plaintiff

– AND –

Parshotam Kumar Bhasin, also known as P.K. Bhasin, Assurance Investments & Financial Services Inc., Vikas Mahajan, Navjyoti Mahajan, Naav Investments Inc., Naav International Inc., Akshay Bhasin, Man Mohni Babber, Keemti Lal Babber, also known as Vinay Babber, also known as Bobby Babber, 2229290 Ontario Inc., 7581769 Canada Corporation, Anilchandra T. Desai, 2280807 Ontario Inc. o/a Designer Brands Warehouse, Vishal Gnadhi, P.K.B. Insurance & FinancialServices Ltd., Lucky Insurance Agencies Ltd., 2315707 Ontario Inc., 1165016 Ontario Limited, 1094763 Ontario Limited, Daljit Singh Chib, Daljit Singh Chib, Daljit Singh Chib and Anita Devi Dhall, Defendants

BEFORE: Justice E.M. Morgan

COUNSEL: Natalie Mullins, for the Plaintiff

Ray Thapar, for the Defendants, Keemti Lal Babber, also known as Ninay Babber, also known as Bobby Babber, 2229290 Ontario Inc., and Man Mohni Babber

HEARD: January 14, 2014, with additional written submissions on costs

SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT

[1] In my endorsement of January 14, 2014, I indicated that the Moving Defendants would have requested a total of just over $6,800 if they were successful. I awarded costs to the Plaintiff to match that figure.

[2] I indicated that I was reducing the Plaintiff’s costs from the $8,500 that it requested in its costs outline to $6,800, even though it was the successful party on the motion. As I explained in my endorsement, the Moving Defendants had correctly argued that paragraph 1(a) of the Statement of Claim was overly broad and that the prayer for relief sought a number of causes of action against the Moving Defendants that did not actually apply to them. I therefore reduced the Plaintiff’s costs award to reflect the extra effort that the Moving Defendants incurred in obtaining this clarification of the claim.

[3] Mr. Thapar, for the Moving Defendants, has written to me since the release of my endorsement indicating that I may have erred in describing his costs request. He points out that $6,800 was the amount that he calculated his costs to be on an “actual rate” basis, but that the amount he sought on a partial indemnity basis was $4,871.42.

[4] Ms. Mullins, for the Plaintiff, has responded to Mr. Thapar’s correspondence, indicating that she does not agree that I erred in my description of the Moving Defendants’ request for costs. She points out that in their Notice of Motion and factum the Moving Defendants requested costs on a substantial indemnity basis rather than a partial indemnity basis, and so I was right to look at the “actual rate” figure as reflecting the relief that the Moving Defendants sought.

[5] I have reviewed the cost outlines submitted by the parties. Mr. Thapar is correct that a figure of just shy of $6,800 represents his costs on an “actual rate” basis. That said, I used this figure and description not in order to compensate anyone for Mr. Thapar’s actual rate, but as a convenient shorthand for the reduction that the Plaintiff’s costs merited.

[6] I exercised the discretion in fixing costs granted to me in section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure by reducing the Plaintiff’s request from $8,500 to $6,800. I continue to be of the view that this reduction of costs was appropriate to the extra effort that the Moving Defendants went to in ensuring that the relief sought against them in paragraph 1(a) of the Statement of Claim is limited to the claims specifically aimed at them.

[7] Regardless of how I might describe the $6,800 figure, it represented, and continues to represent, the figure that I would fix as an award of costs to the Plaintiff. I appreciate counsel’s attention to detail in reading the costs portion of the endorsement and in drawing my attention to a possible misdescription, but I find no reason to change the award of costs as found in my endorsement of January 14, 2014.

Morgan J.

Date: January 22, 2014