Bedrian v. S.V.S. Auto Parts Ltd. et al., 2026 ONSC 3751

Court File and Parties

Citation No.: Bedrian v. S.V.S. Auto Parts Ltd. et al., 2026 ONSC 3751 Court File No.: CV-25-1009 Date: June 26, 2026 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Sarkis Bedrian, Applicant -and- S.V.S. Auto Parts Ltd., Vicken Haneshian, 2751724 Ontario Inc., Sevag Haneshian and Sose Haneshian, Respondents

Before: MacNeil J.

Counsel: Sarkis Bedrian – Self-represented Applicant Evan Morden – Agent for Andrew Beney, Lawyer for the Respondents

DECISION ON COSTS

1The Applicant made a motion seeking an order removing Andrew Beney and Pavey Law LLP as the lawyer of record for the corporate respondent, S.V.S. Auto Parts (“S.V.S.”). By my decision released March 4, 2026, I held that there was no justification to grant the motion, and it was dismissed. The parties were not able to resolve the issue of costs. Written costs submissions were received from the Respondents. No written costs submissions were submitted by the Applicant. This is my decision on the issue of costs of the motion.

General Principles

2Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, provides that an award of costs is in the discretion of the court.

3Rule 57.01(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, provides that, when awarding costs, the court shall fix them in accordance with subrule (1) and the Tariffs. Tariff A establishes the allowable fees and disbursements.

4Rule 57.01(1) sets out factors to be considered by the court in exercising its discretion to award costs, including:

• the result in the proceeding;
• any offer to settle or to contribute made in writing;
• the principle of indemnity, including, where applicable, the experience of the lawyer for the party entitled to the costs as well as the rates charged and the hours spent by that lawyer;
• the amount of costs that an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay in relation to the step in the proceeding for which costs are being fixed;
• the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;
• the complexity of the proceeding;
• the importance of the issues;
• the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;
• whether any step in the proceeding was: (i) improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or (ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;
• a party’s denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted; and
• any other matter relevant to the question of costs.

5Generally speaking, costs on a substantial indemnity basis will be awarded “where there has been reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties”. The threshold for an award of full indemnity costs is even higher. As the Ontario Court of Appeal discussed in Net Connect Installation Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc., 2017 ONCA 766, at para. 8:

… There is a significant and important distinction between full indemnity costs and substantial indemnity costs. An award of costs on an elevated scale is justified in only very narrow circumstances – where an offer to settle is engaged or where the losing party has engaged in behaviour worthy of sanction: Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) (2009), 2009 ONCA 722, 100 O.R. (3d) 66 (C.A.) at para. 28. Substantial indemnity costs is the elevated scale of costs normally resorted to when the court wishes to express its disapproval of the conduct of a party to the litigation. It follows that conduct worthy of sanction would have to be especially egregious to justify the highest scale of full indemnity costs.

6The fact that a proceeding has little merit is no basis for awarding substantial indemnity costs: Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, 1993 CarswellBC 264 (SCC), at para. 260.

7Rule 1.04(1.1) provides that, in applying the rules, the court shall make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues, and to the amount involved, in the proceeding.

8Modern costs rules are designed to advance five main purposes: (1) to indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation, although not necessarily completely; (2) to facilitate access to justice, including access for impecunious litigants; (3) to discourage frivolous claims and defences; (4) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants; and (5) to encourage settlements: Fong v. Chan, 1999 CanLII 2052 (ON CA), 1999 CarswellOnt 3955, 128 O.A.C. 2 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 22; 394 Lakeshore Oakville Holdings Inc. v. Misek, 2010 ONSC 7238, at para. 10.

9Ultimately, in fixing costs, the primary principles remain fairness, reasonableness and proportionality.

10As stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council (Ontario) (2004), 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 26, when fixing costs, the calculation of hours and time rates is only one factor to be taken into account. The overall objective is “to fix an amount that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful party to pay in the particular proceeding, rather than an amount fixed by the actual costs incurred by the successful litigant.” (See also Zesta Engineering Ltd. v. Cloutier, 2002 CanLII 25577 (ON CA), 2002 CarswellOnt 4020, [2002] O.J. No. 4495 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 4.)

Position of the Respondents

11The Respondents submit that they are entitled to their costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $7,513.44. They were wholly successful on the motion. The motion was without merit and constituted an improper attempt to interfere with the Respondents’ right to be represented by their counsel of choice. The allegations made against counsel were serious, unfounded, and unsupported by cogent evidence. The Respondents incurred unnecessary costs to respond to the baseless allegations and to address a motion that should never have been made. The motion amounted to a misuse of the Court’s process.

12The Respondents submit that, on March 9, 2026, they offered to resolve the costs of the motion for $4,166.44, representing their partial indemnity costs. However, in response, their counsel received two emails from Ms. Tonner (Dempsey) who has been denied a right of audience in this proceeding to represent the Applicant. Ms. Tonner’s correspondence “contained abusive and threatening statements directed at counsel for the Respondents, including allegations of fraud and other misconduct, together with threats that counsel would ‘get what’s coming’.” While the Respondents do not seek any order against Ms. Tonner personally, they note that her continued involvement in this proceeding is in direct contravention of a court endorsement. The Respondents submit that Ms. Tonner’s continued involvement and the abusive tenor of her correspondence – which were apparently made on the Applicant’s behalf or for his benefit – are relevant factors for the Court to consider when exercising its discretion on costs, and that these factors warrant elevated costs.

13Alternatively, the Respondents request their partial indemnity costs fixed at no less than $5,861.44, which represents the $4,166.44 previously offered plus an additional $1,695.00 (inclusive of HST) for the preparation of the written costs submissions and supporting affidavit.

Position of the Applicant

14No written submissions on the issue of costs were received from the Applicant.

Analysis

15Given that the Applicant’s motion was wholly unsuccessful, the Respondents are entitled to costs. A determination must be made as to what a fair, reasonable and proportionate quantum of costs is in these particular circumstances.

16I am satisfied that the hourly rates claimed by the Respondents’ counsel are fair and reasonable. I find that the hours claimed are appropriate for a motion of this nature, and that the disbursements claimed by the Respondents appear to be reasonable and necessarily incurred. I have also considered the following:

(a) The motion was of great importance to the Respondents, and it had to respond accordingly since they faced losing the lawyer of their choice if the motion had been granted.

(b) The motion was complicated by the number and nature of the allegations made by the Applicant.

(c) The Applicant could reasonably have expected to pay costs in the event of lack of success on the motion.

(d) The Respondents made a reasonable offer to settle the issue of costs.

(e) The emailed correspondence sent by Ms. Tonner (Dempsey) to the Applicant’s counsel, on March 9, 2026, in response to the Respondents’ offer was highly inappropriate and concerning. It appears that the Applicant was copied on the first email but not the second.

17Having regard to all of these factors and considering the balancing exercise required under Rule 57.01 and the guidance provided by the Boucher decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, I am satisfied that awarding costs to the Respondents in the amount of $6,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements, is fair, reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

Disposition

18For the foregoing reasons, this court orders that the Applicant pay costs to the Respondents fixed in the amount of $6,000.00, payable within 30 days of the release of these reasons.

MacNEIL J.