Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-19-627559 DATE: 20210217 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: 9383859 Canada Ltd, Plaintiff AND: Musab Saeed, Mian Imran Saeed, Nirmalarajah Gunarajah, Viveka Ramesh, Mohinder Sansoye, Ramesh Senthilnathan, Kubeskran Navaratnam, Ronald Lachmansingh and Marilyn Reiter-Nemetz

BEFORE: C.J. Brown, J.

COUNSEL: Sandeep Singh, for the Plaintiff James R.G. Cook, for Kubeskran Navaratnam, Defendant Bronwyn M. Martin, for Ronald Lachmansingh, Defendant Scott Martin, for Marilyn Reiter-Nemetz, Defendant

HEARD: July 7, 2020

Costs Endorsement

[1] The defendants, Kubeskaran Navaratnam, Ronald Lachmansingh and Marilyn Reiter-Nemetz seek their costs of this Rule 21 motion, in which they were all wholly successful.

[2] In general, costs are intended to compensate the successful party or parties, in whole or in part, for their costs incurred in a proceeding. In general, costs are awarded on a partial indemnity basis.

[3] Pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c. C.43, s.131 and the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg. 194, R. 57.01, this Court has wide discretion in awarding costs.

[4] Costs must be fair and reasonable and within the expectation of the parties. Boucher v Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario, [2004] O.J. No. 2634, 71 O.R.(3d) 291 (Ont. C.A.).

[5] As regards the factors set forth at Rule 57.01, to be considered in exercising my discretion to fix costs, I make the following comments:

Importance and Complexity: The matter was of significant importance to the parties. The issues were not complex.

Experience of Counsel: Counsel for the three defendants were experienced. Mr. Saeed, the sole owner and director of the plaintiff corporation, represents his corporation, having been given leave of the court to do so. He is not a lawyer.

Expectations and Proportionality: I am of the view, having reviewed the Costs of all parties including the plaintiff, that the amounts sought by the defendants are fair and reasonable. I am further satisfied that those costs were within the expectation of the parties, including the unsuccessful plaintiff, as the plaintiff’s costs, set forth in his bill of costs, adduced, were in the range of those sought by the three defendants. The plaintiff sought costs in the amount of $15,910.40, all inclusive for partial indemnity costs and $24,215.60 all inclusive for substantial indemnity costs. The defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis in the range of $13,722.50 to $17,500 and substantial indemnity costs in the range of $19,942.02 to $30,000.

[6] Taking into consideration the factors set forth at Rule 57.01 and my comments with respect thereto, above, and in all of the circumstances of this case, I award the successful defendants their costs on a partial indemnity basis, as follows:

Kubeskaran Navaratnam $13,722.50 all inclusive Ronald Lackmansingh $9,806.88 all inclusive Marilyn Reiter Nemetz $15,500.00 all inclusive

[7] The costs are payable by the plaintiff to the defendants forthwith in the amounts indicated above.

CAROLE J. BROWN, J. Date: February 17, 2021