Court File and Parties
MILTON COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-00004749-0000
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton, ON L9T 1Y7
RE: THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF HALTON,
Plaintiff/Responding Party
AND:
DAVID ATSUSHI OHASHI, PAMELA GLORIA OHASHI, SYNTEG INC., SYPAR LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, MARINO WOO, FLOVAL EQUIPMENT LTD., TODD McLAREN, JOHN DOE INC., and JOHN DOE,
Respondents/Moving Parties
BEFORE: RSJ E. Ria Tzimas
COUNSEL: Ralph Cuervo-Lorens, Counsel for the Plaintiff
ralph.cuervo-lorens@mcmillan.ca
Talia Gordner, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Sezen Izer, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Paul H. Starkman, Counsel for the Defendants/Moving Parties
David Atsushi Ohashi and Pamela Gloria Ohashi
HEARD: In Writing
COSTS ENDORSEMENT
RE: MOTION RETURNABLE JUNE 26, 2025
INTRODUCTION
1On June 26, 2025, three motions were scheduled for argument. On August 1, 2025, I rendered my decision, see: 2025 ONSC 4503.
2Halton was successful in its opposition to the Ohashi motion. The Ohashi motion was dismissed in its entirety and accordingly Halton is entitled to costs.
3Halton asks for costs ranging from $18,435.80 on a partial indemnity scale to $26,366.82 on a full indemnity scale.
4Although counsel for the Ohashi responded to Halton's costs submissions outside of the anticipated timetable, and technically those submissions ought to be ignored, the essential upshot in the submissions was that Halton ought to be awarded any costs because it failed to prove its costs outline. Alternatively, counsel argued that only 25% of Halton's costs ought to be attributed to the Ohashi motion, since Halton responded globally to three motions before the court, and that in any event"costs in the cause" is a common and appropriate award. Ultimately, it concluded that costs ought to be limited to an award of $4,600, all inclusive.
5For the reasons that follow I fix costs at $12,500.
ANALYSIS
6It is useful to begin with a review of the legal principles that govern the awarding of costs.
7Subsection 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, places the ability to award costs in the Court's discretion.
8Subrule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Ont. Reg. 194, RRO, as amended, outlines a list of factors that may be taken into account in the determination of costs:
57.01 (1) In exercising its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act to award costs, the court may consider, in addition to the result in the proceeding and any offer to settle or to contribute made in writing,
(0.a) 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;
(0.b) 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;
(a) the amount claimed and the amount recovered in the proceeding;
(b) the apportionment of liability;
(c) the complexity of the proceeding;
(d) the importance of the issues;
(e) the conduct of any party that tended to shorten or to lengthen unnecessarily the duration of the proceeding;
(f) whether any step in the proceeding was,
(i) improper, vexatious or unnecessary, or
(ii) taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;
(g) a party's denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted;
(h) whether it is appropriate to award any costs or more than one set of costs where a party,
(i) commenced separate proceedings for claims that should have been made in one proceeding, or
(ii) in defending a proceeding separated unnecessarily from another party in the same interest or defended by a different lawyer;
(h.1) whether a party unreasonably objected to proceeding by telephone conference or video conference under rule 1.08; and
(i) any other matter relevant to the question of costs.
R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 57.01 (1); O. Reg. 627/98, s. 6; O. Reg. 42/05, s. 4 (1); O. Reg. 575/07, s. 1; O. Reg. 689/20, s. 37
9The law of costs is well settled. A successful party to civil litigation in Ontario is entitled to a reasonable that it will receive costs unless there are special circumstances. Costs are in the discretion of the court. The result of the of a proceeding is a consideration but it is not the exclusive consideration. The overall objective of fixing costs is to arrive at a figure that is fair and reasonable in the circumstances, see Przyk v. Hamilton Retirement Group Ltd., (The Court of Rushdale, 2021 ONCA 267 at paras. 11-13, and Boucher v. Public Accounts Council for the Province of Ontario, 2004 14579 (ONCA). The court in Neary v. Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, 2024 ONSC 2510 at para. 57 noted that costs rules are designed to foster three purposes, the indemnification of the successful party, the encouragement of settlements, and the discouraging of inappropriate behaviour by litigants.
10In this instance, my point of departure is paragraphs 10, 11, 17, 18, 20 and 30 of my decision of August 1, 2025. I reiterate my finding at paragraph 30 where I noted that the "Ohashi" motion was entirely unnecessary and a waste of judicial resources. The issues raised were neither legitimate nor arguable. They were fabricated and designed to mislead and obstruct the discovery process.
11At the same time, I was not impressed by Halton's submissions at the time of the motion that there were deficiencies to their productions and that a supplemental affidavit would be forthcoming. As I noted at paragraph 21, Halton did not put its best foot forward. This specific factor tilts my costs assessment in the direction of a partial indemnity assessment.
12Having regard for these overriding concerns, there is no foundation to the Ohashi suggestion that costs by Halton be allocated on a 25% to their motion. The Ohashi motion was argued first, and the submissions ran into the afternoon. As to Halton's materials, they were mostly responsive to the Ohashi allegations against Mr. Nagel. I am prepared to discount some of the costs claimed to take into account some of the overlap, but such discount would be in the range of 10-15%.
13As to the experience of counsel and the total number of hours, I have some concerns with the overlap in time spent by senior counsel and that too warrants some discounting.
14On complexity, the fluidity in the Ohashi submissions, as discussed more particularly in paragraphs 17 and 18 of my decision of August 1, 2025 rendered the issues for my consideration far more complex than they had to be, and quite frankly was inexcusable. This is one reason to reject the suggestion that costs be awarded in the cause. Parties have to understand that steps designed to obstruct and confuse have consequences.
15In the result, using the claim of $18,435,80 as the partial indemnity benchmark, I reduce that claim to $12,500 payable within 30 days of the date of this order.
RSJ E. Ria Tzimas
Date: January 12, 2026