COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-577128 (Toronto)
MOTION HEARD: 2019 07 23
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Muthu Ponnampalam
v.
Piramenthiratheesan Thiravianathan
BEFORE: MASTER R. A. MUIR
COUNSEL: Muthu Ponnampalam, plaintiff appearing in person Saikh Faruque for the defendant
SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS FOR DECISION – COSTS AND TIMETABLE
[1] On July 23, 2019 I heard a motion brought by the plaintiff requesting an order striking various paragraphs of the defendant’s fresh as amended statement of defence.
[2] I released my reasons for decision on August 26, 2019. I dismissed the plaintiff’s motion and requested written submissions in relation to costs and a timetable. I have now received and considered those submissions.
[3] In my view, there should be no order for the costs of this motion. The defendant was successful in resisting the plaintiff’s motion to strike paragraphs from his pleading. However, it was not unreasonable for the plaintiff to have brought this motion. As I stated in my reasons for decision of August 26, 2019, the statement of defence was inconsistent in certain parts and unnecessarily repetitive. I found that the defendant’s pleading could have been better drafted. It was saved by a generous reading of the pleading. I also rejected the defendant’s main argument that the plaintiff’s motion was res judicata. While some of the plaintiff’s actions in connection with this motion may have been ill-considered, I do not view his conduct as improper or vexatious to an extent that would justify a costs sanction. It is therefore fair and reasonable that there be no order for the costs of this motion.
[4] I agree with the defendant that the plaintiff’s proposed timetable is too ambitious in the present context of this action. The defendant has expressed an intention to bring a motion for security for costs. It makes practical sense for that motion to proceed before any further discovery, or other steps, that would require the parties to incur additional legal costs and disbursements. The outcome of that motion may affect the future course of this proceeding. In my view, a timetable order at this stage should be limited to the motion for security for costs. Additional direction with respect to a discovery plan and timetable may be sought from the master hearing the security for costs motion.
[5] I am therefore ordering that the defendant’s motion record in support of his motion for security for costs be served by November 29, 2019, with a return date not later than February 28, 2020. Responding evidence, if any, shall be served by January 3, 2020. Reply evidence, if any, shall be served by January 17, 2020. Cross-examinations, if any, shall take place by January 31, 2020. Factums shall be served in accordance with the Rules.
Master R.A. Muir
DATE: 2019 10 23