M.A.R.S. Tech. v. Prashad, 2015 ONSC 3057

CITATION: M.A.R.S. Tech. v. Prashad, 2015 ONSC 3057

COURT FILE NO.: CV-06-0594-A1

DATE: 2015-05-12

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: M.A.R.S. Tech. Maintenance & Renovation Services Ltd., Applicant

AND:

Mahendra Prashad, and Steve Seepersaud, Ranee Seepersaud, and Nirmal Heeralal a.k.a. Neil, Defendants

BEFORE: Le May J.

COUNSEL: J. Copelovici, Counsel for the Plaintiff

Steve Seepersaud, Ranee Seepersaud, and Mahendra Prashad, Third parties no one appearing on their behalf.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] This matter proceeded to an undefended trial before me on April 27, 2015. I issued judgment for the Plaintiff the next day, and the Plaintiff now seeks costs, as well as two clarifications on the judgment that should be issued. I will address both issues.

Clarifications

[2] Counsel for the Plaintiff has pointed out to me that he had mistakenly advised me that the applicable prejudgment interest rate was four per cent, when it was actually two per cent. Accordingly, the Judgment of the Court, when issued and entered, will reflect the proper amount.

[3] Counsel for the Plaintiff further rightly pointed out that the Defendant is known both as Mahendra Prashad and Steve Prashad. This is clear from the documentation that was filed before the Court. As a result, the judgment will reflect that fact as well.

Costs

[4] The Plaintiff claims costs in the sum of $55,089.75 inclusive of HST and Disbursements. At first blush, this amount seems to be excessive, given the fact that the Plaintiff only recovered approximately $25,000.00 plus prejudgment interest on account of damages. I will therefore analyze the relevant amounts.

[5] I start with the disbursements that are claimed, which amount to $7,372.67 inclusive of HST. All of these disbursements appear reasonable to me. In particular I would note that the Plaintiff was required to retain a handwriting expert in order to assert that a signature on a document was not his. This disbursement included a requirement that the expert be on standby for a Court appearance. Given the nature of the case, they were all reasonable expenses.

[6] Further, had the Defendant acknowledged the facts in this case, the Plaintiff would not have been put to this expense. The Defendant should bear all of these costs, given my findings of fact.

[7] In terms of the fees, Counsel for the Plaintiff advances two key reasons why the remaining $47,717.08 (inclusive of HST) is reasonable:

A. An Offer to Settle the matter was made in 2006. Although a facsimile confirmation is not provided, it is clear that counsel for the Defendant was aware of this offer. It is further clear to me that the Plaintiff has done as well or better than this offer on this action. The offer was for the return of the Infiniti as of September 15, 2006, along with $5,000.00 all in. Given that the Infiniti should have been returned in 2004, and the black book value of the car was $25,000.00 at the time, the $5,000.00 is clearly worth less than the depreciation of the automobile over two and a half years combined with the Plaintiff’s legal costs to 2006.

B. The Plaintiff has been required to take significant additional steps to bring this matter to trial as a result of the delay of the defendant. Based on my review of the Court file and the bill of costs filed by Mr. Copelovici, I entirely agree with this submission.

[8] In the circumstances, then, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover costs in the sum of $55,089.75, inclusive of HST and disbursements. These costs and disbursements are clearly justified on the record before me. Those costs are payable within seven days, and the Plaintiff does not need the consent of the Defendant to take out the appropriate Orders.

Le May J.

Date: May 12, 2015