Court File and Parties
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
YOUNES O S ZUREGAT
Plaintiff
– and –
12048728 CANADA INC. AND MASSIULLAH KOHGADAI
Defendants
Counsel:
Thaya PK Kandiah, for the Plaintiff
Masood Fariad, for the Defendants
HEARD: In Writing
Costs Endorsement
CALLAGHAN J.
1This is the costs endorsement following the trial of this matter.
2The plaintiff was largely successful at this three-day trial. The plaintiff therefore seeks his costs.
3As the successful party, the plaintiff is entitled to partial indemnity costs: McBride Metal Fabricating Corp. v. H. & W. Sales Co. (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 97, [2002] O.J. No. 1536 (C.A).
4The exercise now is "to fix an amount of costs that is objectively reasonable, fair, and proportionate for the unsuccessful party to pay in the circumstances of the case": Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 587, [2022] O.J. No. 3632, at para. 61, citing Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario) (2004, 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (C.A.). This is not a mechanical exercise but rather involves consideration of the criteria set out in rule 57.01 and an exercise in judgment.
5In this case the plaintiff was successful in recovering $555,493 plus interest. There had been a counterclaim for over $1 million which was abandoned just prior to trial. The matter was not terribly complex. The trial turned on findings of fact that went the way of the plaintiff. The trial was straightforward and neither side did anything that prolonged the trial that warrants increasing or decreasing the quantum of costs. The matter was important to both parties.
6The plaintiff was represented by two 2017 call counsel. They each charged the plaintiff $375. The plaintiff incurred fees of $38,156. I do not find the hours expended or the rates charged to be unreasonable. I do not find the use of two counsel to be excessive, although I accept that there may have been a modest amount of duplication because there were two counsel. The partial indemnity fee sought is $22,893 plus $2,976 in HST. I would assess fees at $18,500 inclusive of HST. I have no issue with the disbursements of $2, 617. Thus, the total cost award is $21,117.
7This is an amount that is proportionate to the matters in issue. It is an amount that reflects the level of complexity of the case. It is an amount a losing party, after a three-day trial, could reasonably expect to pay in costs for a matter such as this.
8Finally, it is necessary to "step back and consider the result produced and question whether, in all the circumstances, the result is fair and reasonable": Apotex Inc., at para. 60, applying Restoule v. Canada, at para. 356. Having considered the factors above and the success achieved, I am of the view that the proposed costs award is fair and reasonable.
Callaghan J.
Released: April 21, 2026