Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-00058943 DATE: 20191213

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Vijay Bhaskar, Plaintiff AND: Evgueni Poltavets and Svetlana Poltavets, Defendants

AND RE: Evgueni Poltavets and Svetlana Poltavets, Plaintiffs by Counterclaim AND: Vijay Bhaskar and Tahir Majeet and Navdeep Boparai and Shinder Kelley and Monu Bansal and Jitesh Bhalla and Baljinder Singh Sandhu and Harinderpal Singh Cheema, Defendants by Counterclaim

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice R. B. Reid

COUNSEL: C. Sinclair, Counsel for Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Cheema, Defendants by Counterclaim Defendants and Plaintiffs by Counterclaim, Self-represented

HEARD: November 21, 2019

Decision on Costs of Motion

[1] On November 21, 2019, Baljinder Singh Sandhu (“Mr. Sandhu”) and Harinderpal Singh Cheema (“Mr. Cheema”) each brought a summary judgment motion requesting that the counterclaim against them by Svetlana Poltavets and Evgueni Poltavets (the “Poltavets”) be dismissed. The motions were heard together.

[2] For oral reasons given following the motions, the counterclaims were dismissed with leave to amend.

[3] Costs submissions were made at the time on behalf of Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Cheema but the Poltavets, who were self-represented, requested time to file costs submissions. Those submissions were received on November 29, 2019.

[4] The following is my order as to costs of the motion.

[5] Briefly by way of background, the Poltavets are the defendants in a mortgage enforcement action. Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Cheema are lawyers. One acted for a lender where the Poltavets were borrowers. The other acted for the transferor of a charge.

[6] Based on the allegations in the statement of claim, I concluded that no reasonable cause of action was disclosed against Mr. Cheema and Mr. Sandhu. There were no details of inappropriate actions by either of them against the Poltavets. Although fraud was pleaded, there were no facts supporting that allegation. Professional dishonesty is not a recognized tort. It is well-established that lawyers do not owe a duty of care to non-clients.

[7] Counsel for Mr. Cheema and Mr. Sandhu requested a costs order in the all-inclusive sum of $3,000 for each of them.

[8] The self-represented plaintiffs by counterclaim filed a bill of costs in which they claimed costs in the all-inclusive amount of $13,547.40. This was despite the fact that they were self-represented.

[9] My discretion to award costs arises from s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act. The factors which guide the exercise of my discretion are found in rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Success is a presumptive factor.

[10] In addition, I have considered the issue of proportionality including the amount of costs that the unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay. The motion was not significantly complex and there were no particular steps taken by either party that tended to shorten or lengthen the duration of the proceeding unreasonably.

[11] Based primarily on their success, Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Cheema are entitled to costs. In effect, they should not have been made parties to the action in the first place based on the allegations contained in the claim against them. They have undertaken unnecessary legal expense and are entitled to compensation. Although the Poltavets were self-represented, that status does not protect them from a costs order that otherwise would be justified.

[12] Costs on a partial indemnity basis are appropriate. The request for $3,000 on an all-inclusive basis for each of Mr. Sandhu and Mr. Cheema is reasonable.

[13] Therefore, there will be an order that the plaintiffs by counterclaim, Evgueni Poltavets and Svetlana Poltavets pay the all-inclusive sum of $3,000 for costs to each of the defendants by counterclaim, Baljinder Singh Sandhu and Harinderpal Singh Cheema, for a total award of $6,000, which costs are payable within 60 days.

Reid J.

Date: December 13, 2019