Court File and Parties

CITATION: Ramalingam v. Kusalakumar 2016 ONSC 2038

COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-481531

DATE: 20160323

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: MADAN KANMANY RAMALINGAM, Plaintiff

AND: MATHINI KUSALAKUMAR, Defendant

BEFORE: Stinson J.

COUNSEL: Vitali Luchko, for the plaintiff

Mathini Kusalakumar, appearing in person

HEARD at Toronto: in writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] In my reasons for decision released July 7, 2015, I granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff for the total sum of $146,651.44, plus prejudgment interest. The plaintiff has made subsequent written submissions as to costs. The defendant has filed no responding materials. This endorsement, therefore, addresses the plaintiff's claim for costs.

Liability for costs

[2] The standard rule is that a successful party is entitled to an award of costs. There are no facts relating to this case which would warrant a departure from that rule. I therefore conclude that the plaintiff is entitled to an award of costs.

Scale of costs

[3] The plaintiff seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis only. I agree that is the appropriate scale.

Quantum of costs

[4] The plaintiff seeks costs of $27,482 for fees, HST of $3,572.66 and disbursements of $4,339.85, for a total claim of $35,394.51.

[5] I have reviewed the time dockets of plaintiff's counsel. In my view, they reflect a reasonable application of time to the nature of the dispute. This was a case of moderate complexity, both in relation to the factual disputes and the legal issues raised. To the extent more time was spent on the matter than might otherwise have been necessary, this was due to the failure of the defendant to cooperate and to advance the matter on a timely basis. One of the consequences was the need to try to deal with the first mortgagee, while the action was pending. Another consequence was the need for multiple appearances in motions scheduling court. Once again, this was caused by the defendant’s lack of cooperation.

[6] The plaintiff chose the most expeditious way to bring the matter to resolution, by way of a motion for summary judgment. It ultimately emerged that the credibility issues were such that a mini-trial was necessary. Once again, the plaintiff proceeded efficiently and arranged for some of the evidence to be presented by Skype, at a considerable saving of expense. The min-trial lasted one day and resulted in the judgment in favour of the plaintiff on all issues.

[7] In terms of proportionality, having regard to the amount in issue (almost $150,000) a claim for partial indemnity fees of approximately $27,500 is not out of line. Put another way, given the various steps that the plaintiff was required to take, it should come as no surprise to the defendant that costs of this magnitude are sought.

[8] In my view, the costs sought by the plaintiff are fair and reasonable to both parties.

[9] I therefore fix the plaintiff’s costs at the all-inclusive sum of $35,394.51.

Stinson J.

Date: March 23, 2016