Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-11-417585 DATE: 20210901 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: MEGA INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK (CANADA) AND: JOHN CHIN LEE and MARY NING-SHENG HUANG

BEFORE: VERMETTE J.

COUNSEL: Deborah Squires and David Goodman, for the Plaintiff John Chin Lee, self-represented

HEARD: September 1, 2021

ENDORSEMENT AS TO COSTS

[1] On August 3, 2021, I issued an endorsement in this matter: (a) largely granting the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaim in this action, as well as a counterclaim and a crossclaim in a related action, which were all brought by the Defendant John Chin Lee; and (b) dismissing Mr. Lee’s cross-motion for the disclosure and production of certain banking information by the Plaintiff, and for an order against the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services to revive the corporation Hing Loong Investments Limited.

[2] Further to the last paragraph of my endorsement, the Plaintiff delivered costs submissions on August 12, 2021. Mr. Lee has not delivered any responding costs submissions. On August 26, 2021, my assistant sent an e-mail to Mr. Lee noting that the deadline to send his costs submissions had passed and granting him an extension of time until August 30, 2021 to deliver his costs submissions. Mr. Lee was advised that if he did not send costs submissions by that date, the issue of costs would be decided without his input. No response or submissions were received from Mr. Lee. This is my decision on costs.

[3] The Plaintiff seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $9,000.00 (inclusive of disbursements and HST). This is a lower amount than the total of the Plaintiff’s costs outline, which is $9,939.12.

[4] Generally speaking, and subject to the following comments, I conclude from my review of the Plaintiff’s costs outline that the hours spent by the Plaintiff’s lawyers and the costs sought by the Plaintiff are reasonable in the circumstances. However, while there may have been good reasons to do so from the client’s perspective, I do not think that it is reasonable for Mr. Lee to pay for the attendance of two senior counsel at the hearing of the motions. In order to address this and potential duplication of work between Mr. Goodman and Ms. Squires, a small reduction in the amount sought is appropriate (taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff is already seeking less than the amount reflected in its costs outline).

[5] In light of: (a) the Plaintiff’s costs outline and the comments above; (b) the procedural background to this motion, including the adjournment on June 4, 2021; (c) the fact that there were two motions; (d) the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure; and (e) the reasonable expectations of the parties, I find that the fair and reasonable award of partial indemnity costs in favour of the Plaintiff is in the all-inclusive amount of $8,000.00. The costs are to be paid by Mr. Lee within 30 days.

Vermette J.

Date: September 1, 2021