2026 ONSC 1756

COURT FILE NO.: CV-24-00000299-0000

DATE: 2026 03 24

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

RSSJ INVESTMENTS INC., KEWAL MINHAS and KARSHAN MINHAS

M. Katzman, for the Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

• and -

SONNET INSURANCE COMPANY

E. Zadro, for the Defendant

Defendant

HEARD: In Writing

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

LEMAY J.

1The Plaintiffs are advancing a claim under a policy of insurance as a result of losses that they suffered as a result of a house fire. Specifically, the Plaintiffs held a mortgage on the property that burned. The Defendant had underwritten the policy of insurance. The Defendant sought summary judgment on the basis that the Plaintiffs were not the party specifically named as the mortgagee in the policy of insurance. I dismissed that motion and directed that the issue proceed to trial.

2I am now required to fix the costs in this matter. The Plaintiffs seek partial indemnity costs in the sum of $21,666.43 inclusive of HST and disbursements. The Defendant acknowledges that costs are owing but argues that the amount sought by the Plaintiffs is excessive and that a fair award of costs in this case would be $8,000.00 all inclusive.

3For the reasons that follow, I am of the view that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff costs in the sum of $14,000.00 all-inclusive.

Analysis

4I start with the observation that, as conceded by the Defendant, the successful parties in this case are entitled to their costs on a partial indemnity basis. The Plaintiffs were successful and, therefore, should be entitled to their costs.

5The dispute in this case is over the quantum of costs. In assessing the appropriate quantum of costs, I am mindful of the factors set out in Rule 57.01. Of those factors, I am of the view that the most relevant in this case are:

a) The complexity of the proceeding;

b) The importance of the issues;

c) The expectations of the unsuccessful party; and

d) The conduct of any party that tended to shorten or lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding.

6I will deal with each factor in turn.

7I start with the complexity of the proceeding. This was a matter that was of only moderate complexity at most. It was an issue that turned on the interpretation of the standard mortgage contract and the analysis of not more than four or five cases. This is a factor that strongly supports a much lower quantum of costs than what the Plaintiffs are seeking.

8Then, there is the importance of the issues. The Plaintiffs are advancing a claim for several hundred thousand dollars. Further, contrary to the Defendant’s position that the purpose of this motion was to “focus the litigation”, I am of the view that the Defendant’s goal was to make it impossible for the Plaintiffs to advance any claim separate and apart from the claims being advanced by the property owner. While there was nothing wrong with this goal, failing in it will attract costs consequences. If this was the only relevant factor, then I would conclude that the costs sought by the Plaintiffs should be awarded.

9However, it is not the only relevant factor. I must also consider the reasonable expectations of the parties, and particularly the losing party. The Defendant argues that the time that they spent on this matter would only have been approximately half of what the Plaintiffs spent. While that may be the case, that factor would still justify a costs award in excess of $10,000.00.

10Finally, there is the conduct of the party that shortens or lengthens the proceeding. In this case, the Defendants failed to confirm the motion in December of 2025. I accept that this failure was through inadvertence as a result of different practices in different centers within the Central West Region. However, this is still a factor that supports an increase in the costs awarded to the Plaintiffs, as there would have been costs thrown away.

11When I consider all of those factors together, I conclude that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiffs the sum of $15,000.00 all inclusive as the costs for this motion, within thirty (30) calendar days of the release of this endorsement.

___________________________ LEMAY J

Released: March 24, 2026

2026 ONSC 1756