Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00655032-0000

DATE: 20210818

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

IMTAZUR RAHMAN

Applicant

– and –

KHURRAM JAHANGIR and NADIA KHURRAM

Respondents

COUNSEL:

Ronald Lachmansingh and Katherine Lee, for the Applicant

No one appearing for the Respondents

HEARD: August 18, 2021

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

VERMETTE J.

[1] On July 14, 2021, I released Reasons for Judgment in this application. Further to the last paragraph of the Reasons for Judgment, the Applicant delivered costs submissions on July 26, 2021. The Respondents have not delivered any responding costs submissions. The Reasons for Judgment contemplate this possibility and state the following: “If the Respondents fail to deliver costs submissions within the time set out above, I will decide the issue of costs without their input.” This is my decision on costs.

[2] The Applicant seeks costs against the Respondents on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $60,956.64 (inclusive of HST and disbursements). In the alternative, he seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $45,022.59 (inclusive of HST and disbursements).

[3] Substantial indemnity costs are only warranted in rare and exceptional cases where a party has engaged in behaviour worthy of sanction, such as where there has been reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties: Davies v. Clarington (Municipality), 2009 ONCA 722 at paras. 28-33.

[4] In my view, this is a case where substantial indemnity costs are warranted. As set out in more detail in the Reasons for Judgment dated July 14, 2021, the Respondents ignored and failed to comply with court orders, repeatedly used stalling tactics, failed to file proper responding materials, and failed to attend the hearing on June 11, 2021. In addition, two days before the hearing and more than one month after the court-ordered deadline, Mr. Jahangir attempted to file voluminous, improper and unsworn evidence that was largely irrelevant and contained disparaging and vexatious statements and serious allegations against the Applicant and his lawyers.

[5] With respect to quantum, it is clear that the Applicant had to incur additional costs as a result of the Respondents’ stalling tactics, last-minute requests for adjournments, and last-minute attempt at filing improper evidence. Further, the issues raised in the application were very important for the Applicant as they involved gaining vacant possession of the property that he had purchased for his family to live in. The Applicant had to find alternative accommodation while the application was being litigated as a result of the Respondents’ improper occupation of the property. In light of the foregoing, the Respondents should reasonably have expected to pay a substantial costs award in the event that they were unsuccessful.

[6] Despite this, it is appropriate to reduce the amount of substantial indemnity costs sought by the Applicant in order to address potential duplication of work and inefficiencies in the time spent, and to ensure that the overall time claimed is reasonable.

[7] In light of the Applicant’s bill of costs, the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the reasonable expectations of the parties, I find that the fair and reasonable award of substantial indemnity costs in favour of the Applicant is in the all-inclusive amount of $50,000.00. The costs are to be paid by the Respondents within 30 days.

Vermette J.

Released: August 18, 2021