Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-22-0158
Date: 2025-04-15

Court: Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Plaintiff: Batavia Developments Inc.

Defendants: Abdul Shakoor Mohsini, Hasnain Saeed, Obaidul Hoque, and Obaidul Hoque Law Professional Corporation

Before: J.C. Corkery

Counsel:
J. Newton, Counsel for the Plaintiff
S. Hossain, Counsel for the Defendants

Heard: October 9, 2024

Costs Endorsement

[1] On March 11, 2025, I granted the plaintiff’s motion to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (the “CPL”). The plaintiff was entirely successful and now seeks its costs on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $58,574.43, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

[2] In support of its claim for costs on a higher scale, the plaintiff submits:

a. the agreement of purchase and sale provides that Mr. Mohsini “shall bear all costs incurred by the vendor” to discharge the CPL;

b. Mr. Mohsini’s failure to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts at the initial CPL hearing;

c. Mr. Mohsini engaged in conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the duration of the motion; and

d. Mr. Mohsini refused to make admissions on significant evidence that would have reduced the costs of the parties.

[3] Mr. Mohsini’s position is that the amount claimed is not reasonable. It does not reflect the amount of time and effort that was warranted for a single motion. The costs claimed are disproportionate to the nature of the proceedings. The amount far exceeds what Mr. Mohsini could have reasonably anticipated or expected to pay in the circumstances.

[4] Costs are in the discretion of the court: s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43. In determining the appropriate quantum of costs, I must consider what is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the circumstances: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.). Factors the court may consider are listed in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194.

[5] A contractual term respecting costs does not bind the court’s discretion. While as a general principle, that discretion will be exercised in favour of that term, a court may refuse to enforce such term where there is good reason, including where the successful party has engaged in “inequitable conduct” or where imposing costs would be “unfair or unduly onerous”: Burr v. Tecumseh Products of Canada Limited, 2023 ONCA 135, paras 129-131, citing Bossé v. Mastercraft Group Inc., 123 D.L.R. (4th) 161, leave to appeal refused, [1995] S.C.C.A. No. 205.

[6] I accept the submissions relied upon by the plaintiff in support of the costs claimed. In the circumstances of this case, I cannot say that the successful party has engaged in “inequitable conduct” or that imposing the costs sought would be “unfair or unduly onerous”. While the plaintiff’s costs may be high, Mr. Mohsini agreed to pay those costs, and I cannot find good reason why he should not be bound by that agreement.

[7] The plaintiff’s costs are fixed on a full indemnity basis in the amount of $58,574.43, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Date: April 15, 2025