ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

PAUL PHUONG DO Plaintiff

– and –

JOHN TIMOTHY SINCLAIR, AKA Sinclair Defendant

COUNSEL: Alastair McNish, for the Plaintiff Alessia De Gasperis, Nadia Condotta, for the Defendant

READ: May 11, 2026

Mathen J.

COSTS DECISION

[1] On March 3, 2026, I granted summary judgment to the Plaintiff, Paul Phuong Do (“Do”). I urged the parties to come to an agreement on costs. I received costs submissions from the parties. This is my decision.

[2] Do brought the action for breach of contract, seeking satisfaction of a Promissory Note which included a formula that accrued very high interest over time. I awarded Do his requested damages. I rejected Do’s requests to (a) find that the Defendant engaged in fraudulent misrepresentation and (b) make an anticipatory declaration under section 178 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.B-3 (BIA).

[3] Do claims legal costs in the amount of $58,499.81 against the Defendant, Tim Sinclair (“Sinclair”). Do seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis from the commencement of his claim until February 18, 2025 ($22,168.93), and on a substantial indemnity basis ($31,071.41) hence, plus disbursements of $5,259.47.

[4] Sinclair argues that, since success was divided, the parties should bear their own costs.

[5] On February 18, 2025, Do made an offer to settle the action for $752,416 plus $50,000 for costs, with no terms relating to the fraudulent misrepresentation or BIA declaration.

[6] In total, Do would have settled the case for $802,416 in principal, interest and costs. In my decision, I found Sinclair liable for $3,627,988.75 for the total owing in principal and interest on the promissory note, to December 31, 2024; and $1,884.87 per diem to the date of judgment (being a further $804,839.49).

[7] Under the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 131(1), there is broad discretion in determining costs. Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure lists factors to be considered. The overall objective is to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the particular circumstances of the proceeding. Costs are presumptively awarded to the successful party in a proceeding.

[8] Do urges the Court to not approach the costs issue as though success was purely divided between the parties. I agree, to an extent. While I did not grant Do’s requested relief on some legal issues – such as fraudulent misrepresentation – Do prevailed on the motion in the sense that he was awarded a significant sum of money, more than his offer.

[9] That said, I conclude that a fair recognition of the monetary value of the judgment is to grant Do some costs, i.e., not order the parties to bear their own costs. I do not agree that recognition of Do’s success requires costs at a substantial indemnity rate.

[10] I have reviewed Do’s Bill of Costs. I find the work and rates contained therein reasonable.

[11] In the circumstances, I find it fair and reasonable to fix costs at $40,000. I find that amount to be within the reasonable contemplation of the Defendant.

ORDER

[12] In conclusion, I make the following order:

a. The Defendant, John Timothy Sinclair, shall pay costs fixed at $40,000 to the Plaintiff, Paul Phuong Do.

Mathen J.

Released: May 12, 2026

CITATION: Phuong Do v. Sinclair, 2026 ONSC 2775

COURT FILE NO.: CV-23-00707988-0000

DATE: 20260512

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN: