CITATION: Martins et al. v. Dehal, 2026 ONSC 185

COURT FILE NO.: CV-20-00073255

DATE: 2026-01-09

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

Miguel Martins also known as Michael Martins and Michael Martins Holdings Inc. and Reimar Construction Corp.

Samuel Nash, for the Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs

and -

Baljinder Dehal

Baljinder Dehal, in person

Defendant

HEARD: December 4, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

Associate Justice J. Kriwetz

Overview

1On October 16, 2025, the Plaintiffs moved for an order granting them leave to discontinue the action against the Defendant, and if leave was granted, an order that the Plaintiffs be granted the costs of the proceedings on a substantial indemnity basis. At the same time, the Defendant, who is self-represented, requested a stay or dismissal of the Plaintiff’s motion as frivolous or vexatious pursuant to Rule 2.1.

2At the hearing on October 16, 2025, Justice Valente dismissed the Defendant’s request for a stay or dismissal and granted leave to the Plaintiffs to discontinue the action. Justice Valente ordered that the matter of costs of the discontinued action be determined on December 4, 2025, and adjourned the balance of the Plaintiffs’ motion to that date. He also ordered the parties to deliver any additional materials on the issue of costs in accordance with an agreed upon timetable.

3Therefore, it is the issue of the costs of the proceedings which is before me.

4I have reviewed the Plaintiffs’ written cost submissions dated October 31, 2025, the Defendant’s written costs submissions dated November 14, 2024, (the Defendant’s costs submissions were not uploaded to Case Centre prior to the hearing, but before the hearing began, I asked the Defendant to send a copy of his costs submissions to the Registrar, which he did.), the Plaintiffs’ written reply costs submissions dated November 24, 2025, the Plaintiffs’ motion record in respect of the motion returnable on October 16, 2025, and the Defendant’s responding motion materials

5At the hearing, both counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendant made submissions to the Court.

Summary of the Proceedings

6This was a claim for the repayment of loans made by the Plaintiffs to the Defendant. The Plaintiffs claim that the total amount of the loan advances made was $193,500.00.

7The Statement of Claim was issued on July 6, 2020. The Defendant delivered a Statement of Defence on October 27, 2020.

8On January 14, 2021, on the Plaintiffs’ motion, Justice Goodman ordered, among other things, that the Defendant deliver an affidavit of documents and copies of all productions to the Plaintiffs by noon on February 4, 2021, and that the Defendant attend at examinations for discovery by the end of February 2021. Costs of that motion were reserved to the judge hearing the trial or at a further motion, as the case may be.

9The Defendant was examined for discovery on February 19, 2021. A copy of the transcript of the examination is included as part of the Plaintiffs’ motion record. During examinations for discovery, the Defendant admitted to receiving $170,000.00 from the Plaintiffs, and he also gave several undertakings, which he promised to answer within 14 days.

10On July 9, 2021, the Plaintiffs moved for an order compelling the Defendant to answer his undertakings, and they also sought partial judgment in the amount of $170,000.00 based on the Defendant’s admission.

11On September 8, 2021, Justice Parayeski granted judgment in the amount of $170,000.00 in favour of the Plaintiff, and ordered the Defendant answer his undertakings within 60 days. The balance of the issues on the motion was adjourned.

12On December 19, 2021, Justice Standryk issued an order which, among other things, required the Defendant to pay the costs of the motion for judgment in the amount of $5,000.00 within 60 days.

13In 2023, the Plaintiffs, as part of their efforts to enforce the judgment dated September 8, 2021, initiated a land sale of a parcel of real property owned by the Defendant. The sale was scheduled to proceed on April 30, 2025. On April 17, 2025, the Defendant paid the sum of $204,800.97, which included the sum of $170,000.00 set out in the September 8, 2021 judgment, plus post-judgment interest and the costs and disbursements of enforcing the said judgment.

14There is a dispute as to whether the full amount of the cost order made on December 19, 2021, was fully paid, but I need not resolve that issue on this motion.

15In any case, the Plaintiffs, having recovered a partial judgment for the amounts claimed, chose to forego pursuing the balance of the amount claimed, and moved for leave to discontinue the claim, which the Defendant opposed.

The Positions of the Parties

16Having read the written submissions, and heard the oral submissions of the parties, I will briefly summarise them.

17The Plaintiffs seek costs against the Defendant on an elevated scale because they were successful in the proceeding and the Defendant’s conduct during the proceeding warrants such an order. Included with the Plaintiffs materials was a copy of a transcript of a telephone call which showed that the Defendant fabricated his defence. Despite his admission at discoveries, he did not consent to judgment for $170,000.00, and the Plaintiffs were required to bring a motion for partial judgment. It was not until more than three and a half years after it was issued, and shortly before the scheduled sheriff’s sale of his property, that the Defendant paid the judgment. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs provided several examples of the Defendant’s repeated attempts to frustrate the court process. The Plaintiffs also submit that the Defendant wrote several inflammatory e-mails to the Plaintiffs and copied the Law Society of Ontario (the “LSO”), repeatedly accusing the Plaintiffs’ counsel of misconduct and dishonesty. On October 27, 2025, the Defendant sent an e-mail to the LSO, and on October 28, 2025, he wrote to the Premier of Ontario, making allegations of dishonesty against the Plaintiffs’ counsel. Copies of the said correspondence were included in the Plaintiffs’ written submissions. The Plaintiffs further submit that, on October 7, 2020, they made a rule 49 offer to settle, offering to dismiss the action without costs upon the payment of $193,500.00. Although the Plaintiffs do not assert that the cost consequences of rule 49 should apply, their point is that the Defendant did not make any offer to settle and then paid $204,875.53 on April 17, 2025. Therefore, had the Defendant accepted the offer to settle in October 2020, he would have paid less, and the litigation could have ended long ago. The Plaintiffs, therefore, seek substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $32,812.38. The Plaintiffs included a Bill of Costs with their written costs submissions.

18In his submissions, the Defendant takes issue with the conduct of the Plaintiffs, and particularly, their counsel throughout the proceedings. He submits that there has been “unjustified delay, repeated misleading statements to the Court, excessive litigation tactics against him as a self-represented party, and an attempt to inflate costs.” He accused the Plaintiffs’ counsel of disregarding the order of Justice Valente. He further accuses the Plaintiffs’ counsel of disregarding the Rules of Civil Procedure and “engaging in a clear abuse of process” by attempting to “reintroduce and re-litigate issues that were fully addressed in 2020-2021, including evidence reviewed by the Honourable Justice Paresky (sic)…”. He accuses the Plaintiffs of reviving or expanding the dispute in their costs submissions and submits that the Plaintiffs “should be barred from introducing or relying on any evidence or issues that were extinguished by their own discontinuance of pleadings”. He further asks the Court to treat the Plaintiffs’ “attempt to do so as improper, prejudicial, and fundamentally incompatible with the orderly administration of justice.” He made submissions about the delay caused by the Plaintiffs and the prejudice he suffered. He also submits that the Plaintiffs’ counsel made misrepresentations to the Court regarding the payment of the $5,000.00 cost award. He submits that he was subject to “aggressive litigation and unnecessary motions” and that he “endured sustained pressure, intimidation and unnecessary procedural complexity, which caused significant stress and anxiety.” He asked the Court to consider the costs incurred by him. He further submits that the Plaintiffs’ claim for costs should be invalidated because of his allegation that the Plaintiffs’ counsel were misleading and that they made misrepresentations. The Defendant, therefore, submits that no costs be awarded to the Plaintiffs or, alternatively, that he be awarded costs.

Disposition

19I find absolutely no merit in the Defendant’s submissions. There is no evidence whatsoever before this Court that supports any allegation of misconduct by the Plaintiffs’ counsel in these proceedings. There is also no evidence that they made any misrepresentations or that they were misleading in any way.

20On the other hand, there is ample evidence in the materials which shows that the Defendant’s conduct throughout the course of the proceedings made the proceedings more difficult, time-consuming, and costly than necessary. Having reviewed the transcript of the Defendant’s examination for discovery, it is clear the Defendant was evasive and made several inflammatory comments throughout the course of the examination. The Defendant sent several correspondences to the Plaintiffs’ counsel, many of which were copied to the LSO and others, baselessly accusing them of, among other things, dishonest and professional misconduct, harassment, and intimidation. He also sent correspondence to the Premier of Ontario making much the same baseless allegations.

21The Defendant’s conduct prior to the issuance of the judgment against him caused unnecessary delays and additional costs in what should have been a straightforward debt collection action. He continued to engage in the same conduct after the judgment was issued, and he continued to make the same baseless allegations at the hearing of this motion.

22The fact that the Defendant is self-represented is no excuse for such outrageous conduct.

23Under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, as amended (the “CJA”), the Court has a broad discretion to award costs in a proceeding.

24Subrule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the factors which the Court is to consider when exercising its discretion under section 131 of the CJA. A cost order should reflect what the Court views as a fair and reasonable amount. see: Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier, [2002 25577](https://www.minicounsel.ca/oca/2002/25577) (Ont. C.A.) at para. [4]].

25The Plaintiffs succeeded in obtaining a substantial partial judgment against the Defendant and, therefore, are entitled to their costs of the proceeding. Although the judgment was not for the full amount claimed, and the Plaintiffs decided to not pursue the litigation for the balance, that is no reason to discount the Plaintiffs entitlement to costs. [see: Roberts v. ZoomerMedia Ltd., 2016, ONSC 2426, at para.9].

26Typically, costs are awarded on a partial indemnity scale, but there are circumstances where the Court may award costs on a higher scale.

27I am of the view that, because of the Defendant’s conduct and baseless allegations, as noted above, an award of costs on a substantial indemnity basis is warranted. [see: Gates v. The Humane Society of Canada, 2016 ONSC 6052, at paras. 9 to 14, citing Gates v. The Humane Society of Canada, 2016 ONSC 6345, at paras. 80, 82-84, 86-87, 90 and 92].

28I have reviewed the Plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs and do not think that the time spent, the disbursements incurred, and the rates charged to be unreasonable in the circumstances.

29Therefore, having considered the foregoing, and the factors set out in subrule 57.01 of the Rules, the Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiffs’ costs of the proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount $32,000.00, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.