Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Court File No.: CV-24-86064 Date: February 19, 2026

Re: Panthea Afshari, Plaintiff

• and -

Maurizio Privitera, Defendant

And Between:

Maurizio Privitera, Plaintiff by Counterclaim

• and -

Panthea Afshari and Royal LePage State Realty Brokerage, Defendants by Counterclaim

Before: MacNeil J.

Counsel:

Viktoria Anteby – Lawyer for the Moving Party/Defendant by Counterclaim, Royal LePage State Realty Brokerage

Maurizio Privitera – Self-represented, Responding Party/Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Reasons for Decision on Costs

[1] This is my decision on costs respecting the motion made by Royal LePage State Realty Brokerage ("Royal LePage") seeking summary dismissal of the counterclaim brought against it by the defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, Maurizio Privitera ("Mr. Privitera"). The motion was granted, and the counterclaim was dismissed under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 on the basis that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, and struck without leave to amend under Rules 21 and 25 for disclosing no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

[2] The parties were unable to settle the issue of costs. Royal LePage made written submissions to the court setting out its position respecting same, but nothing was received from Mr. Privitera.

General Principles

[3] Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 provides that an award of costs is in the discretion of the court.

[4] Rule 57.01(3) of the Rules provides that, when the court awards costs, it shall fix them in accordance with subrule (1) and the Tariffs. Tariff A establishes the fees and disbursements that are allowable under Rules 57.01 and 58.05.

[5] Rule 57.01(1) sets out factors to be considered by the court in exercising its discretion to award costs, including:

• the result in the proceeding;
• any offer to settle or to contribute made in writing;
• the principle of indemnity, including, where applicable, the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged and the hours spent by that lawyer;
• the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;
• the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;
• the complexity of the proceeding;
• the importance of the issues;
• the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;
• whether any step in the proceeding was: (i) improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or (ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;
• a party's denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted; and
• any other matter relevant to the question of costs.

[6] Generally speaking, costs on a substantial indemnity basis will be awarded "where there has been reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties". The fact that a proceeding has little merit is no basis for awarding substantial indemnity costs: Young v. Young, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, 1993 CarswellBC 264 (SCC), at para. 260.

[7] Rule 1.04(1.1) provides that, in applying the rules, the court shall make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved, in the proceeding.

[8] Modern costs rules are designed to advance five main purposes: (1) to indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation, although not necessarily completely; (2) to facilitate access to justice, including access for impecunious litigants; (3) to discourage frivolous claims and defences; (4) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and (5) to encourage settlements: Fong v. Chan, 1999 CarswellOnt 3955, 128 O.A.C. 2 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 22; 394 Lakeshore Oakville Holdings Inc. v. Misek, 2010 ONSC 7238, at para. 10.

[9] Ultimately, in fixing costs, the primary principles remain fairness, reasonableness and proportionality.

[10] As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario) (2004), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 26, when fixing costs, the calculation of hours and time rates is only one factor to be taken into account. The overall objective is "to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the particular proceeding, rather than an amount fixed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant." (See also Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier, 2002 CarswellOnt 4020, [2002] O.J. No. 4495 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4.)

Position of Royal LePage

[11] Royal LePage seeks costs of the action and motion on a substantial indemnity basis, in the amount of $21,089.91, as it was entirely successful on its motion for summary judgment. Alternatively, it seeks partial indemnity costs in the amount of $14,157.41.

[12] Royal LePage submits that the nature of the allegations made by Mr. Privitera had the potential to have a prejudicial impact on Royal LePage's professional reputation, including allegations of misrepresentation, fraud and negligence. By the counterclaim, Mr. Privitera sought an order that Royal LePage be held "responsible for the total damages of $500,000.00". The defence of the action and the summary judgment motion both involved issues of moderate legal complexity. Mr. Privitera actively participated in the course of the hearing, despite not serving any responding materials.

[13] Mr. Privitera did not make any proposal to Royal LePage in an effort to resolve the issue of costs. As a result, Royal Lepage has had to incur additional expense to prepare written costs submissions.

[14] Finally, Royal LePage notes that Mr. Privitera has not yet paid the $800.00 "wasted costs" award that was made against him in favour of Royal LePage on June 24, 2025. Royal Lepage asks that this $800.00 amount be added to any costs awarded in favour of it. This amount has been included in both the substantial indemnity and partial indemnity costs amounts requested.

Position of Mr. Privitera

[15] As indicated above, no written costs submissions were provided by Mr. Privitera for the court's review and consideration.

Analysis

[16] I am not persuaded that Mr. Privitera's conduct has been "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous" warranting an award of costs on a substantial indemnity basis, as requested by the Royal LePage. As a result, I will determine costs on a partial indemnity basis.

[17] I am satisfied that the hourly rates claimed by counsel for Royal LePage are fair and reasonable. I also find that the hours claimed, as set out in the Costs Outline, are fair and reasonable and that the legal work completed was appropriately split between the lawyer and a licensed paralegal.

[18] I accept the disbursements claimed by Royal LePage in the amount of $633.00 to be reasonable and necessarily incurred in the circumstances of this case.

[19] I have also considered the following:

(a) It was reasonable for Royal LePage to have brought the summary judgment motion, and it was wholly successful on it.

(b) The issues raised on the motion were of importance to both parties. I accept Royal LePage's submission that the issues were of moderate complexity.

(c) Mr. Privitera could reasonably have expected to pay costs in the event of lack of success on the motion.

(d) Prior to bringing the motion, Royal LePage had written to Mr. Privitera offering to agree to a dismissal of the counterclaim against it on a without costs basis, but that offer was not accepted.

[20] Having regard to all of these factors, and considering the balancing exercise required under Rule 57.01 and the guidance provided by the Boucher decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, I am satisfied that awarding partial indemnity costs to Royal LePage in the amount of $11,260.54 plus HST in the amount of $1,463.87 plus disbursements in the amount of $633.00, for a total of $13,357.41, is fair, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances. I do not include the $800.00 "wasted costs" award that was previously made on June 24, 2025 in this total, since that amount has already been ordered to be paid by Mr. Privitera to Royal LePage and there is no need to order payment of it again. Parties must comply with court orders otherwise they are in breach of same and consequences can flow from that breach.

Disposition

[21] For the foregoing reasons, this court orders that Mr. Privitera pay costs to Royal LePage fixed in the amount of $13,357.41, payable within 30 days of the release of these reasons.

MacNEIL J.

Released: February 19, 2026