COURT FILE AND PARTIES

COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-469042
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-522065

DATE: 20150814

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SARBJIT SINGH

Plaintiff/

Defendant by Counterclaim

– and –

DONALD JOHN TRUMP SR., TRUMP TORONTO HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORP., TRUMP MARKS TORONTO LP, TALON INTERNATIONAL INC., TALON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT INC., VAL LEVITAN, ALEX SHNAIDER and TORONTO STANDARD CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION NO. 2267

Defendants/

Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

AND BETWEEN:

SE NA LEE

Plaintiff

– and –

Defendants

Mitchell Wine and Kevin D. Sherkin for the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim

Mark A. Klaiman and Jennifer Wu for the Defendants/Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

Mitchell Wine and Kevin D. Sherkin for the Plaintiff

Mark A. Klaiman and Jennifer Wu for the Defendants

HEARD: In writing

PERELL, J.

REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS

[1] Sarbjit Singh, in one action, and Se Na Lee, in a second action, sued Donald John Trump Sr., Trump Toronto Hotel Management Corp., Trump Marks Toronto LP, Talon International Inc. (“Talon”), Talon International Development Inc., Val Levitan, Alex Shnaider, and Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2267. Their actions concerned their purchase of hotel condominium units in the Trump International Hotel, which is part of the Trump Tower, a 70-storey mixed-use complex at 325 Bay Street, in the City of Toronto.

[2] Mr. Singh and Mrs. Lee moved for summary judgment. I dismissed their summary judgment motions. See Singh v. Trump, 2015 ONSC 4461.

[3] The successful Defendants Donald John Trump Sr., Talon, Val Levitan and Alex Shnaider seek costs of $68,081.60, all inclusive of HST and disbursements, on a partial indemnity basis.

[4] Mr. Singh and Mrs. Lee submit that there should be no order as to costs or in the alternative that the costs award should be reduced as the amount sought by the Defendants is excessive and unreasonable. Mr. Singh and Mrs. Lee submit that the appropriate award would be $30,000 inclusive of HST plus disbursements; i.e. $40,349.92, all inclusive.

[5] Mr. Singh and Mrs. Lee submit that there are special circumstances that would justify no order as to costs; namely that: (1) they were successful in proving all material facts in dispute; (2) the Defendants distributed the Estimates (which were at the heart of the litigation) notwithstanding their understanding that they could not distribute “rental or cash flow forecasts” or “financial projections”; and (3) the Estimates were deceptive documents that contained actionable misrepresentations of commission, of omission, and of half-truth.

[6] While it is true that Mr. Singh and Mrs. Lee were successful in proving many of the material facts in dispute including misrepresentations, nevertheless they were ultimately unsuccessful on several critical issues of fact, several issues of mixed fact and law, and several issues of law, and they were ultimately unsuccessful in establishing several critical factual and legal elements of their claims for rescission and for damages.

[7] The case at bar is not a case of divided success. Rather, it was hard (and well fought) litigation, and Mr. Singh and Mrs. Lee undoubtedly would have expected that they would have to pay costs on a partial indemnity basis if they were unsuccessful.

[8] In my opinion, the successful Defendants are entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis and the predominant discretionary factor is that the court should fix an amount that is fair and reasonable and is within the reasonable expectation of the parties in all the particular circumstances of the case. See Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.).

[9] Having reviewed the Defendants’ Bill of Costs and having considered the parties’ costs submissions, I award the Defendants $58,000, all inclusive.

Perell, J.

Released: August 14, 2015

COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-469042
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-522065

DATE: 20150814

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

SARBJIT SINGH

Plaintiff/

Defendant by Counterclaim

– and –

Defendants/

Plaintiffs by Counterclaim

AND BETWEEN:

SE NA LEE

Plaintiff

– and –

Defendants

REASONS FOR DECISION - COSTS

PERELL J.

Released: August 14, 2015

Singh v. Trump, 2015 ONSC 5127

Case Summary

COURT FILE AND PARTIES

This Proceeding

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law