Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-1223 DATE: 20190725 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

RE: MONA GILL DHILLON – and – HARMEET SINGH HUNDAL

BEFORE: Justice Irving André

COUNSEL: V. Sharma, for the Applicant O. Chaudhry, for the Respondent

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

[1] Following my endorsement dated April 11, 2019 in a motion involving the sale of an investment property jointly owned by the litigants, both parties have made written submissions regarding costs. Ms. Dhillon seeks costs in the amount of $10,766.93 on a partial indemnity basis while Mr. Hundal seeks costs of $8,000.40 on a substantial indemnity basis and $6,500.33 on a partial indemnity basis.

BACKGROUND

[2] The motion involved a dispute over an investment property known as the Georgetown property. The parties agreed that the property should be sold but disagreed about the extent of the repairs that should be done prior to the sale. Ms. Dhillon wanted to do a number of repairs but Mr. Hundal maintained that many of the proposed repairs were unnecessary. Mr. Hundal, who had been charged with assaulting Ms. Dhillon, wanted to have access to the home to remove his personal belongings in accordance with a court order, but Ms. Hundal changed the lock to the home and denied him access. There were other issues between the parties but these were adjourned to another date for a hearing.

ENDORSEMENT DATED APRIL 11, 2019

[3] Following submissions made by counsel for both parties, I made the following orders:

(1) Ms. Dhillon would conduct repairs to the property in accordance with a “List of Repairs” she compiled;

(2) If the cost of the repairs exceeded $15,000 either party can seek directions from the court regarding payment of any repairs that exceeded $15,000;

(3) The house must be listed for sale within six weeks of April 11, 2019;

(4) Each party is responsible for 50% of the carrying costs of the property;

(5) Mr. Hundal is permitted to have access to the Georgetown property:

a. If his recognizance is varied to allow him to do so; and

b. Ms. Dhillon is not present at the property when Mr. Hundal visits the property.

PARTIES’ POSITIONS

[4] Both parties claim that they were totally successful in the motion. Mr. Hundal maintains that he had made offers to settle which included a) an offer for him to have access to the property and b) his consent for the repairs of the property. Ms. Dhillon maintains that she prevailed on the one contentious issue in the hearing which was whether the repairs she recommended should be carried out.

ANALYSIS

[5] I am required, based on the applicable jurisprudence, to determine a) whether an award of costs is appropriate in this matter and b) if so, what quantum of costs are reasonable and appropriate in this matter.

[6] The main issue in this motion was the extent of repairs that should be done to the property before it was listed for sale. Ms. Dhillon wanted to make substantial repairs to the property over the objection of Mr. Hundal. I essentially ruled in favour of Ms. Dhillon on this issue.

[7] The second issue revolved around Mr. Hundal’s access to the property. Ms. Dhillon, prior to April 11, 2019, had already given Mr. Hundal limited access to the property to remove his belongings. However, I granted him additional access to the property subject to two conditions.

[8] In my view, success in this matter can best be described as mixed although it may be said that Ms. Dhillon was more successful than Mr. Hundal concerning the issue of repairs to the property.

[9] Regarding the offers to settle made by Mr. Hundal, they did not comply with Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure in that they were emailed to the applicant on April 7, 2019, a mere three days before the hearing rather than the required seven days.

CONCLUSION

[10] In my view, it is not appropriate to make any costs order in this matter.

André J. Date: July 25, 2019