Chahal v. Chabrra et al, 2015 ONSC 771
COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-2659-00
DATE: 2015 02 09
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: KULVEET SINGH CHAHAL and RAVINDER CHABRRA,
SAVITA CHHABRA and 2245165 ONTARIO INC.
BEFORE: LEMON J.
COUNSEL: Harvey S. Dorsey, for the Plaintiff
S. Bhangu, for the Defendants Ravinder Chabrra
and Savita Chhabra
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
The Issue
[1] On November 17, 2014, I allowed the Plaintiff’s and Receiver’s motion to approve the sale of the business that is in issue in this litigation. I also stayed the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
[2] I asked that the parties make written costs submissions if they could not otherwise agree on costs. The Plaintiff, the Receiver, and TD Bank were to make their submissions within the next 15 days and the Defendants were to respond 15 days thereafter. On November 28, 2014, I received the Plaintiff’s cost submissions. I have received no submissions from the Receiver or TD Bank. The Defendants’ submissions arrived January 30, 2015 and only then at the prodding of my assistant.
[3] In this litigation, counsel for the Defendant has been late for court on two occasions. The summary judgment motion that was discussed on November 17, 2014 had not yet been filed. I see no reason to continue to acquiesce to defendants’ counsel’s lack of diligence. I therefore put no weight on his submission with respect to costs.
[4] The plaintiff seeks costs fixed in the amount of $7,341.49.
Legal Principles
[5] Rule 57.01 of our Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the factors that the court may consider when determining costs. The relevant factors that I should consider here are:
(a) the result in the proceeding,
(b) the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged and the hours spent by that lawyer;
(d) the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;
(e) the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;
(f) the complexity of the proceeding;
(g) the importance of the issues;
(h) The conduct of any party that tended to shorten or lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding.
[6] Modern costs rules are designed to foster three fundamental purposes: (1) to partially indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation; (2) to encourage settlement; and (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants: Fong v. Chan 1999 2052 (ON C.A.), (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 330, at para. 22.
[7] Costs awards, at the end of the day, should reflect “what the court views as a fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties”: see Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario 2004 14579 (ON C.A.), (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291, at para. 24.
Analysis
[8] The Plaintiff was successful in having the sale approved and staying the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. While the Plaintiff has not been successful in having the action stayed, that appears to be an academic exercise given the sale of the only asset in dispute.
[9] Effectively bringing the action to an end, selling the business and eliminating the Receiver’s expense was exceedingly important for both parties.
[10] From a review of the Plaintiff’s Bill of Cost, while the hourly rate is somewhat high for a partial indemnity claim, the hours requested are very efficient.
[11] The Defendant continued to raise issues that had already been adjudicated and were of little relevance to the issues before the court.
[12] The Defendant, Mr. Chabrra, has already been required to pay costs totalling $44,190.45. He would have been well aware of the cost consequences if he were unsuccessful on this motion.
[13] In all of the circumstances, I award costs fixed in the amount of $7,341.49 to be paid by the personal Defendants to the Plaintiff.
Lemon J
DATE: February 9, 2015
CITATION: Chahal v. Chabrra et al., 2015 ONSC 771
COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-2659-00
DATE: 2015 02 09
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: KULVEET CHAHAL and
RAVINDER CHABRRA, SAVITA CHHABRA and 2245165 ONTARIO INC.
BEFORE: LEMON J.
COUNSEL: Harvey S. Dorsey, for the Plaintiff
S. Bhangu, for the Defendants Ravinder Chabrra and Savita Chhabra
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
LEMON J
DATE: February 9, 2015