Court File and Parties

Court File No.: 1740/19 Date: 2019 11 14

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Omar Shabbir Khan And: Law Society of Ontario, Law Society Tribunal, David Wright, Raj Anand, Margaret Leighton, Barbara Laskin, Deborah McPhadden, Glenn Stuart, Leslie Maunder, Nina Iwanowich, Doctor Michael Colleton, Michael Colleton Medicine Professional Corporation, Legal Aid Ontario, Victor Matanovic, Hamilton Police Services and Kevin Dhinsa

Before: Conlan J.

Counsel: Omar Shabbir Khan, Self-Represented Paul Le Vay and Tiffany O’Hearn Davies, for the Defendants, Law Society of Ontario, Deborah McPhadden, Glenn Stuart, Leslie Maunder and Nina Iwanowich Gillian P. Kerr and Renee I. Zatzman, for the Defendants, Dr. Michael Colleton and Michael Colleton Medicine Professional Corporation Colleen E. Robertshaw, for the Defendants, Hamilton Police Services Board and Kevin Dhinsa Gideon C. Forrest and Mitch Stephenson, for the Defendants Legal Aid Ontario and Victor Matanovic Susan M. Sack, for the Defendants, Law Society Tribunal, David Wright, Raj Anand, Margaret Leighton and Barbara Laskin

Costs Endorsement

I. Introduction

[1] On April 15, 2019, the self-represented Plaintiff, Omar Shabbir Khan (“Khan”), had a Statement of Claim issued in Milton, Ontario. There were sixteen Defendants.

[2] In a nutshell, Khan was a practicing lawyer in Ontario. He was the subject of a complaint to the Law Society of Ontario (“LSO”), as it is now known, regarding alleged billing irregularities and alleged forged documents. In September 2018, upon making a finding that Khan had committed professional misconduct, the LSO revoked Khan’s licence to practice law.

[3] Khan sued (i) the LSO, (ii) the Law Society Tribunal (“LST”), (iii) David Wright (“Wright”) of the LST, (iv) Raj Anand (“Anand”) of the LST, (v) Margaret Leighton (“Leighton”) of the LST, (vi) Barbara Laskin (“Laskin”) of the LST, (vii) Doctor Michael Colleton (“Colleton”), a witness in the course of the disciplinary matter, (viii) Michael Colleton Medicine Professional Corporation, (ix) Legal Aid Ontario (“LAO”), the complainant in Khan’s disciplinary case, (x) Victor Matanovic (“Matanovic”), LAO’s investigator in its review of Khan’s activities, (xi) Hamilton Police Services (“Hamilton Police”), which entity was responsible for a criminal investigation related to Khan’s activities, and (xii) Kevin Dhinsa (“Dhinsa”), then a detective with Hamilton Police, among other Defendants.

[4] The Defendants immediately above all requested, in writing, under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, that Khan’s Claim be dismissed as against them. There were four separate written requests filed – one on behalf of the LST, Wright, Anand, Leighton, and Laskin, and a second on behalf of Colleton and his business, and a third on behalf of LAO and Matanovic, and a fourth on behalf of Hamilton Police and Dhinsa.

[5] In Khan v. Law Society of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 4974, dated August 23, 2019, this Court ruled that the Claim was dismissed as against all of those named Defendants. The Claim was allowed to continue against those Defendants who did not submit Rule 2.1.01 requests.

[6] Written submissions have been filed on costs. The LST, Wright, Anand, Leighton, and Laskin collectively seek their partial indemnity costs in the amount of $5455.58, all-inclusive. LAO and Matanovic together seek their partial indemnity costs in the amount of $4983.58, all-inclusive. Hamilton Police and Dhinsa collectively seek their partial indemnity costs in the amount of $2916.12, all-inclusive. Colleton, presumably, does not seek any costs as no written submissions were filed on behalf of him or his company. Khan, for various reasons, submits that no costs ought to be awarded or, alternatively, costs should be granted in the cause.

II. Decision

[7] Khan makes three major points in his written submissions on costs: (i) that his Claim raised novel issues of law, and (ii) that the costs being claimed by these Defendants are excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate, and (iii) that a costs award against him would cause undue hardship. I will deal with each argument, in turn.

[8] I do not agree that Khan’s Claim as against these Defendants raised novel issues of law. He chose to sue the LST and the other related individuals in the face of ongoing appellate and judicial review proceedings. He chose to sue the LAO and Matanovic in the face of another pre-existing and very similar action out of Hamilton, Ontario. He chose to sue Colleton and his business, ignoring the clear absolute privilege that attached to Colleton’s evidence. He chose to sue Hamilton Police and Dhinsa and raise but one arguable complaint which was already the subject of discussion in the pre-existing Hamilton action.

[9] With respect, all of those choices were clearly bad ones. There is nothing novel about the said claims.

[10] I also do not agree that any costs award against Khan would cause him undue hardship. He claims to have a mediation practice. There is no evidence of impecuniosity.

[11] Finally, I do not agree that there is anything excessive, unreasonable or disproportionate about the costs being claimed by these Defendants. I would say that the only potential criticism is to observe that, perhaps, the Rule 2.1.01 requests could have been filed jointly, in one document, likely saving some paper, some time, and some overall expense.

[12] Notwithstanding the authorities referenced in Khan’s written submissions on costs, in my opinion, this is not a case for no costs or for costs to be awarded in the cause. The successful parties, these Defendants, are presumed to be entitled to costs. They have been reasonable in asking for partial indemnity recovery.

[13] Quantum of costs is largely discretionary. On account of the one potential criticism alluded to above, and looking at the issue of costs globally, I will reduce each costs award by approximately twenty per cent (with each award rounded down to the nearest hundredth). That is undoubtedly arbitrary, but then again the penultimate objective of fairness sometimes calls for some rough justice.

[14] The result is as follows. Costs ordered in favour of the LST, Wright, Anand, Leighton, and Laskin in the total amount of $4300.00. Costs ordered in favour of LAO and Matanovic in the total amount of $3900.00. Costs ordered in favour of Hamilton Police and Dhinsa in the total amount of $2300.00.

[15] This Court orders that each costs award shall be paid by Khan, in full, within 90 days of the date of this Endorsement. Normally, I would allow for 30 days, however, some of these Defendants are institutional in nature and can more readily absorb a longer pay period, and the extra time will also go some way to addressing Khan’s submission that his mediation practice has not been operating for long.

[16] In my view, costs of $10,500.00, globally, is a fair, just, and reasonable amount to be borne by Khan, particularly given the seriousness of the allegations made against these Defendants, never mind the sheer number of alleged causes of action asserted against each and the length of the Statement of Claim.

[17] Finally, it is worth observing that the breakdown of costs per each set of Defendants makes sense. The highest amount, $4300.00, has been awarded to five Defendants collectively, the greatest number and the set that appeared, from a reading of the Statement of Claim, to be a key focus of Khan’s allegations. The lowest amount, $2300.00, has been awarded to Hamilton Police and Dhinsa who, comparatively, had less to deal with than the other two sets of Defendants.

Conlan J.

Date: November 14, 2019