CITATION: Bellisario et al v. 2200 Bromsgrove Development Inc., 2026 ONSC 4050
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
ADAM BELLISARIO, ADRIAN ORTIZ, AKSHAYKUMAR NAIK, OMIBABA LTD, AMIR SIDDIQUI, ARUNAN SIVAKUMAR, BRIAN FERREIRA, CHRISTOPHER ORTIZ, DEVON PEARSON, JAY ATAWALA, SHIV HOLDING INC ., KAILEE TRIGIANI, MICHAEL VENTURA, KATELYN MEADWELL, KYLE CAMILLERI, MANJU DHANKAR, DEEPAK KUMAR, MARIANGEL URDANETA, RAFAEL ENRIQUE CABRERA SALERNO, MAYURAN PONAMPALAM, NELSON MOREIRA, STEPHANIE AGUIAR GAIPO, NICOLE DA SILVA, NIROSIGA ELANKEERAN, ROLANDO SABADO, GRACE SABADO, SAM NATUR, SANDRA D'AVELLA, ALFONSO D'AVELLA, SASA MUDRINIC, PAULA LIONETTI, SHAWN MOORE, STEFANY D'AVELLA, STEPHEN HARKNESS, DINA HARKNESS, ZOYA MOATTAR, KAMALPREET SARAL, BALJOT SARAL, JASPREET PARMAR, INDERJIT SINGH SAJJAN, and MOHAMMAD USMAN KHALID
Applicants
– and –
2200 BROMSGROVE DEVELOPMENT INC.
Respondent
Lia Boritz, for the Applicant
HEARD: July 10, 2026
reasons for Decision
In Respect of the Accounting Ordered
PAPAGEORGIOU J.
Overview
1The Applicants are purchasers (the “Purchasers”) of various units in a townhouse complex called Clarkson Urban Towns (“the Clarkson”). The Respondent, 2200 Bromsgrove Development Inc. (the “Developer”), is the developer of the Clarkson. The Purchasers sought a declaration that the Developer was not entitled to charge them certain adjustment amounts on closing pursuant to their respective agreements of purchase and sale (the “APSs”).
2In its reasons for decision dated April 25, 2025, the Court acknowledged that the Developer was entitled to charge certain amounts pursuant to the APS’s signed by the Purchasers.
3In particular, s. 4.01(c)(iv)(A) permitted the Developer to charge the Purchasers for the cost of installing meters in each unit for water, hydro, and gas. Section 4.01(c)(iv)(B) permitted the Developer to recover the proportionate share from each Purchaser for amounts paid by the Developer to or deposited by the Developer with the Municipality or utility service provider.
4However, I found that these provisions did not entitle the Developer to pass along construction costs paid to the Developer’s own trades and construction workers for infrastructure work.
5I further found that the when the Purchasers asked questions about the adjustment charges, the Developer provided them with packets that purported to pass along all the costs paid to third-party contractors and trades, as well as amounts paid to Metrolinx for “provincial agency approvals”, “procurement charges” and building a safety barrier/crash wall. At the hearing, the Developer conceded that it had indeed charged the Purchasers for amounts it paid to trades and contractors. This was not permitted under the APS.
6Notably, in the lead up to the hearing of the Application which determined the liability issue, the Purchaser had asked the Developer questions about what it had paid for meter installation for each unit and to the Municipality or to utility providers. The Developer had refused such questions.
7As a result, the Court was unable to determine what amounts the Developer may have lawfully been entitled to under the APS as an adjustment. The court directed an accounting but also concluded that this would not have been necessary had the Developer simply answered the questions during cross-examination. That is, had these questions been answered, the entire Application could have been determined without a reference.
8The Court made the following Orders:
THIS COURT DECLARES that under s. 4.01(c)(iv) A of Appendix A of the APSs the Developer is entitled to reimbursement of its costs to install in each Purchaser’s condominium unit a water, hydro and gas meter, including the installation and connection charge for each particular unit meter.
THIS COURT DECLARES that under s. 4.01(c)(iv) B of Appendix A to the APSs the Developer is entitled to reimbursement of each Purchaser’s proportionate share of all electricity, gas, water sanitary, drain and sewer infrastructure, installation, connection and energization costs (or security relating thereto) actually paid by the Developer to or deposited by the Developer with the City of Mississauga or utility service provider.
THIS COURT DECLARES that under s. 4.01(c)(iv) A and B, the Developer is not entitled to reimbursement of amounts that it paid to contractors, trades and other third parties in respect of utility infrastructure, installation, connection and energization costs.
THIS COURT ORDERS an accounting by the Developer of the amounts permitted to be charged to each of the Purchasers as adjustments to the purchase price in their respective agreements of purchase and sale, pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Order, including the provision of invoices, proof of payment or other back- up documentation to establish what specific amounts charged to each of the Purchasers were permitted charges pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
THIS COURT DECLARES that the Developer was not entitled to charge the Purchasers $800 to extend the closing date.
THIS COURT ORDERS AND DIRECTS a reference pursuant to r. 54.02 to determine what amounts were properly charged to the Purchasers by the Developer given the declarations granted in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5 above and the accounting provided by the Developer in paragraph 4.
THIS COURT ORDERS that the reference will also determine which Purchasers paid the $800 fee to extend the closing date and which ones are thus entitled to reimbursement of this amount.
9At a case conference held June 12, 2025, the court timetabled steps for the accounting and the argument in respect of any amounts due as follows:
Delivery by the Developer of accounting and related documents by the end of September, 2025
If necessary, an examination of a representative of the Developer to ask questions by the end of October
Case conference by mid-November
Written submissions by the Purchasers by November 28, 2025
Responding submissions by the Developer by the end of January 2026.
10The parties did deviate from the timetable somewhat on consent.
11The Developer purported to deliver its accounting materials in accordance with timetable.
12Volume I contained invoices from the City of Mississauga, the Region of Peel, and Alectra. Volume II contained invoices from contractors, trades, and other third parties. Notably, the court had already determined that the Developer was not entitled to reimbursement under the impugned sections of the APS for payments made to contractors, trades, and other third parties and yet this material was in Volume II.
13When the Purchasers conducted their examination pursuant to the timetable as altered by them, the Developer refused to answer proper questions and/or to provide answers to undertakings. It refused to answer what informed the production of the documents. It refused to answer whether its representative had read and understood the Judgment. It openly took the position that its position on what it was entitled to recover from the Purchasers had not changed since the court’s decision.
14I draw an adverse inference from the Developer’s failure to answer proper questions: Drosophilinks Consulting Inc., et al v. Canadian National Railway Company et al, 2010 ONSC 3576 at para. 52; York Regional Standard Corporation No. 1206 v. 520 Steeles Developments Inc., 2018 ONSC 3766 at paras. 68-70.
15It also failed to articulate how the documents it produced could demonstrate proper charges under s. 4.01(c)(iv) A and B of the APS.
16When the time for delivery of its written submissions was due, the Developer advised the Purchasers that it would not be making written submissions and that it would simply make oral argument at the damages assessment. The Purchasers lawyer wrote to them and said that it was unfair to ambush them at the hearing. They asked that if the Developer was not going to provide written submissions that they confirm in writing the position they intended to take at the reference hearing. However, the Developer never provided the written submissions or its position.
17Then two weeks before the hearing scheduled for today, the Developer advised that it would not be attending.
18As such, the hearing was unopposed.
19The only materials before the court were provided by the Purchasers. This consisted of the materials provided by the Developer and a description about why these materials did not either comply with the Judgment and/or why the materials did not establish that the Developer had failed to prove that it was entitled to any adjustments under s. 4.01(c)(iv) A and B.
Decision
20I conclude that the Developer has not established that it is entitled to levy any adjustments pursuant to s. 4.01(c)(iv)(A) and (B).
21I also award the Purchasers substantial indemnity costs.
Analysis
Section 4.01(c)(iv)(A): Reimbursement Costs for the Installation of Water Meters.
22As noted, paragraph 1 of the Judgment permits the Developer to pass on the cost of installing a water, hydro, and gas meter in each unit, including the installation and connection charge for each particular unit meter.
23When examined, the Developer’s representative testified he did not know whether the Developer kept track of the cost to install meters in each unit. He indicated that everything was done in bulk and that there wasn’t an individual cost per unit. He also confirmed that the invoices in Volume I from the Region of Peel were not related to the installation of a utility meter.
24There was a letter in Volume I dated July 4, 2019, from the Region of Peel related to site servicing which references a $34,586.58 charge which included a $20,000 refundable security deposit. The Developer gave an undertaking to confirm whether these charges were incurred to install in each unit a water meter. The Developer did not answer this undertaking.
25The Developer also gave an undertaking to direct the Purchasers to any documents in Volume I or II that supported the cost to install in each unit a water meter, hydro meter, or gas meter. The Developer did not answer this undertaking.
26Therefore, I conclude that the Developer has failed to show that it is entitled to any adjustment pursuant to s. 4.01(c)(iv)(A). I take into account the adverse inferences that I noted above.
Section 4.01(c)(iv)(B): Reimbursement of each Purchaser’s proportionate share of all electricity, gas, water sanitary, drain and sewer infrastructure, installation, connection and energization costs (or security relating thereto) actually paid by the Developer to or deposited by the Developer with the City of Mississauga or utility service provider.
27The materials provided by the Developer similarly do not show any entitlement to an adjustment pursuant to s. 4.01(c)(iv)(B).
28The Developer provided invoices or documents from the City of Mississauga that relate to a Planning Act fee, and a site plan letter of credit for 100 % of the cost of site works.
29When examined, the Developer gave undertakings to advise what the planning application fee in the amount of $16,381.44 was for; whether it was passed onto the Purchasers; and if so, on what basis. They did not answer these undertakings.
30With respect to the letter of credit in the amount of $168,299.40, the Developer confirmed this fee was passed onto the purchasers but failed to provide any evidence as to why this site plan letter of credit was a permitted charge under s. 4.01(c)(iv)(B) including whether these site works related to electricity, gas, water sanitary, drain, and sewer infrastructure.
31Volume I also contained charges from the Region of Peel, but charges by the Region of Peel are not permitted charges. The Developer failed to answer undertakings as to whether these amounts were included in the adjustments passed on to purchasers, and whether its position is that it was entitled to pass these amounts onto the Purchasers.
32Volume I also contained Alectra invoices that relate to the cost of energy consumption during construction by the builder or temporary power during construction. On their face these documents do not show that they were connected to the installation of a utility infrastructure. The Developer did not confirm whether any of the amounts were passed onto purchasers by way of adjustment and no evidence that these constitute permitted adjustments.
33As noted, Volume II only contained invoices from contractors, trades, and other third parties, which was a category of charges I concluded the Developer could not charge the Purchasers under these sections.
34I conclude that the Developer has not established that it is entitled to any adjustment charges pursuant to s. 4.01(c)(iv) (B). I take into account the adverse inferences that I noted above.
Costs
35The Purchasers request substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $24,734.80.
36Pursuant to s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, costs are in the discretion of the court. Rule 57 sets out the factors which courts should have regard to when awarding costs. 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”: Boucher v. Public Accountants for the Province of Ontario (2004), 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA), 71 O.R. (3d) 291 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 26; Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) et al., 2009 ONCA 722, 100 O.R. (3d) 66, at para. 52; G.C. v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2014 ONSC 1191.
37The court has the discretion to award substantial indemnity costs, but such costs are “rare and exceptional” and only warranted where there has been reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct on the part of a party: see DUCA Financial Services Credit Union Ltd. v. Bozzo, 2010 ONSC 4601, at para. 5; Foulis v. Robinson (1978), 1978 CanLII 1307 (ON CA), 21 O.R. (2d) 769 (C.A.); and most recently Mars Canada Inc. v. Bemco Cash & Carry Inc., 2018 ONCA 239, 140 O.R. (3d) 81, at para. 43.
38The Developer’s conduct warrants an award of costs on a substantial indemnity basis for the following reasons:
This entire accounting was to ensure fairness to the Developer and to permit it to provide evidence to show any lawful amounts to which it may be entitled pursuant to ss. 4.01(c)(iv)(A) & (B).
This accounting was only required because the Developer failed to answer proper questions when cross-examined prior to the hearing of the Application. I concluded that had the Developer provided the answers, the court could have determined as part of the Application whether the Developer was entitled to any adjustment charges pursuant to the APS.
The Developer’s materials provided as part of this accounting continued to include charges that I had determined they were not entitled to and failed to provide evidence of charges that it could levy.
The Developer failed to comply with the timetable by failing to provide any written submissions.
The Developer failed to answer undertakings for this accounting proceeding.
The Developer failed to advise the Purchasers that it would not be opposing this hearing only two weeks ago.
39Overall, the Developer’s conduct in this case has caused the unnecessary incurring of costs, the waste of court time, and has delayed the adjudication of this matter and forestalled the payment of the damages to which the Purchasers were entitled.
40I have reviewed the Bill of Costs and I find the rates applied and time spent to be fair and reasonable and within the reasonable contemplation of the Developer.
41Therefore, the Purchasers are entitled to substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $24,734.80.
Conclusion
42The Developer has not produced documents and/or shown that the documents it did produce support charges that could be levied by way of adjustment pursuant to ss. 4.01(c)(iv)(A) & (B).
43Therefore, the Purchasers are entitled to:
(a) $1,295,422.15 as reimbursement for costs improperly passed onto the purchasers as adjustments in breach of the APS (as particularized in Schedule "A") plus pre-judgment interest at the rate of 1.8% from July 20, 2022; and
(b) $8,229.00 as reimbursement for legal fees improperly charged by Bromsgrove for purchasers to extend their closing date (as particularized in Schedule "A") plus pre-judgment interest at the rate of 1.8% from July 20, 2022.
(c) Substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $24,734.80
Papageorgiou J.
Released: July 10, 2026
CITATION: Bellisario et al v. 2200 Bromsgrove Development Inc., 2026 ONSC 4050
COURT FILE NO.: CV-22-00684647-0000
DATE: 20260710
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
ADAM BELLISARIO, ADRIAN ORTIZ, AKSHAYKUMAR NAIK, OMIBABA LTD, AMIR SIDDIQUI, ARUNAN SIVAKUMAR, BRIAN FERREIRA, CHRISTOPHER ORTIZ, DEVON PEARSON, JAY ATAWALA, SHIV HOLDING INC ., KAILEE TRIGIANI, MICHAEL VENTURA, KATELYN MEADWELL, KYLE CAMILLERI, MANJU DHANKAR, DEEPAK KUMAR, MARIANGEL URDANETA, RAFAEL ENRIQUE CABRERA SALERNO, MAYURAN PONAMPALAM, NELSON MOREIRA, STEPHANIE AGUIAR GAIPO, NICOLE DA SILVA, NIROSIGA ELANKEERAN, ROLANDO SABADO, GRACE SABADO, SAM NATUR, SANDRA D'AVELLA, ALFONSO D'AVELLA, SASA MUDRINIC, PAULA LIONETTI, SHAWN MOORE, STEFANY D'AVELLA, STEPHEN HARKNESS, DINA HARKNESS, ZOYA MOATTAR, KAMALPREET SARAL, BALJOT SARAL, JASPREET PARMAR, INDERJIT SINGH SAJJAN, and MOHAMMAD USMAN KHALID
Applicants
– and –
2200 BROMSGROVE DEVELOPMENT INC.
Respondent
reasons for Decision
PAPAGEORGIOU J.
Released: July 10, 2026