Khelawan v Bonito, 2026 ONSC 3678

CITATION: Khelawan v Bonito, 2026 ONSC 3678

COURT FILE NO.: CV-21-00670790-0000

DATE: 2026-06-23

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

BRAHNANAND KHELAWAN

Applicant

– and –

SUMINTRA BONITO, a party under disability by her litigation guardian ANANDI KHELAWAN

Respondent

Matthew Urback, Lawyers for the Applicant

Obaidul Hoque, Lawyer for the Respondent

HEARD: In Writing

G. DOW, J.

DECISION ON COSTS

1This matter involved determination of the parties’ respective financial interest in a three bedroom bungalow with a basement unit. The applicant-son was involved in the purchase of the property in 2008 with his respondent-mother. The applicant’s poor credit history resulted in his not initially being on title until his sister moved out in or after 2012.

2As a result of advancing Parkinson’s disease, the respondent-mother was required to move out into a nursing home in June, 2022. This permitted the main floor to be renovated and then occupied by the applicant-son and his spouse.

3My Reasons, released April 17, 2026, (2026 ONSC 2281) divided entitlement in the equity to the property at 65 percent to the applicant and 35 percent to the respondent. It also provided provisions for the sale of the property to realize each party’s equity.

4As part of my Reasons for Decision, I also required and detailed the Bill of Costs of each side. In this regard, the applicant provided a draft Bill of Costs seeking $32,485.60 for partial indemnity fees, rising to $48,728.40 if substantial fees were awarded, plus HST and disbursements (including HST) of $4,229.77. The respondent’s draft Bill of Costs was somewhat lower, that is, $24,407.50 for partial indemnity fees, rising to $30,039.92 if substantial indemnity fees were awarded, plus HST and disbursements (including HST) totalling $3,130.10.

5If the parties could not agree on costs, they were to each forward brief written submissions on or before May 22, 2026. I received the applicant’s written submissions on May 22, 2026 and the respondent’s written submissions on May 28, 2026.

6The applicant sought an award of $15,000, all inclusive, on the basis of repeated failures by the respondent to comply with agreed upon or Court ordered deadlines. There were eleven Court appearances or Case Conferences held between November, 2021 and November, 2024. The respondent’s position is that, in face of a divided result, no costs be awarded.

7The applicant supported its request relying on Rule 57.01(e) and (f) which provides for consideration to be given where conduct by a party that tended to unnecessarily lengthen the duration of the proceeding and/or steps taken “through negligence, mistake or excessive caution”. Each of the eleven appearances appeared to have been initiated by the applicant with regard to the inability or failure of the respondent to cooperate or move the matter forward in a timely manner.

8Counsel for the respondent relied on the following to oppose the applicant’s request:

(a) the deteriorating health of the respondent which impeded the obtaining of instructions and which ultimately resulted in the need for capacity assessment and appointment of a Litigation Guardian;

(b) the concerns raised by Justice Centa in the first of his seven Case Conferences with counsel “whether or not this matter was appropriate to proceed by way of application” given the conflicting evidence, competing claims and material facts in dispute;

(c) the applicant’s ultimate lack of success in obtaining what was sought at the hearing, being an award of 80 to 85 percent of the equity in the property.

9Having reviewed each of the eleven Endorsements, I agree with the applicant’s position. This matter was unnecessarily lengthened by the conduct of the respondent. While her deteriorating capacity required some latitude, the failure to initially proceed to and fund the mediation that the Endorsement of April 13, 2023 indicates was agreed upon (and was then ordered by Justice Centa in his August 3, 2023 Endorsement) cannot be overlooked or disregarded. Similarly, the failure to repeatedly comply with court ordered deadlines for the completion of timetable events cannot be sanctioned. It also provides an insight as to perhaps why the draft Bill of Costs for the applicant was noticeably larger than that of the respondent.

10As a result, mindful of the discretion provided under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 and the other factors detailed under Rule 57.01, I fix the applicant’s costs to be $10,000, inclusive of fees, HST and disbursements, payable by the respondent and to be included as part of “solicitor fees” as contained in paragraph 36(a) of my Reasons for Decision.

_____________________________ Mr. Justice G. Dow

Released: June 23, 2026

CITATION: Khelawan v Bonito, 2026 ONSC 3678