CITATION: Ah Lim v. Chagpar & Associates, 2026 ONSC 1135
COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00648174-0000
DATE: 20260309
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MARIE MICHELLE AH LIM
Applicant
– and –
CHAGPAR & ASSOCIATES PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS
Respondent
self-represented Applicant
Jessica Hewlett and Fahad Warraich, for the Respondent
HEARD: October 21, 2025
John callaghan j.
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is the costs decision in the above assessment appeal. As I set aside the decision below, I have asked for submissions on both the costs of the assessment hearing below and the motion before me. I received no submissions from the Client. I received submissions from the Law Firm. The Law Firm sought no costs for the motion before me but sought costs for the assessment hearing below. I received no responding submissions from the Client.
[2] As there is no request for the costs of this motion from either party, none are ordered.
[3] In respect of costs for the assessment below, the Law Firm seeks the all-inclusive sum of $7,500 for the assessment. The Law Firm filed an affidavit which included a costs outline for the assessment below.
[4] On the motion, I varied the assessed costs to $8,500 in fees and $4,493 in disbursements for a total of $12,993 inclusive of taxes. In October 2021, offers were exchanged before the assessment hearing. The Client offered to settle the remaining accounts for $15,000. Given that the Client made an offer that was more generous than the award as varied, the principles in rule 49.10 ought to apply. The $15,000 was greater than the ultimate award as varied by this Court. In my view, there should be no cost of the assessment hearing awarded to the Law Firm.
[5] Without repeating what I said in the decision on the motion, even if I had not had regard to the offer, I do not believe that the bill of costs is sufficient to award costs to the Law Firm. First, any material in support of the Law Firm’s costs should have been filed below. To file the material at this stage would require considerations as to whether it is appropriate to do so as this hearing was in the nature of an appeal. Moreover, the bill of costs does not include any detailed dockets or similar breakdown which would allow this Court to assess the actual hours spent on work that the Law Firm would not have otherwise incurred as a party. As I noted in the decision on the motion, the Law Firm is not entitled to be compensated for work it would be expected to do as a party. Moreover, there is no evidence of the Law Firm forgoing remunerative work as was the case in Benarroch v. Frad Tayar and Associates P.c., 2019 ONCA 228. In my view, the bill of costs falls short of what a law firm ought to provide where it seeks costs as a party.
[6] No costs shall be awarded either for the assessment below or this motion.
Callaghan J.