Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Summary judgment was granted to RBC for three unpaid loans totaling $274,311.33 plus interest, with no genuine issue for trial.

• The defendant’s counterclaim against RBC was dismissed.

• RBC sought costs based on contractual terms in the loan agreements, requesting enhanced costs on a “solicitor and his own client” scale for two loans and “solicitor and client” scale for the third.

• The court reviewed authorities and principles governing costs, including contractual provisions and judicial discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure.

• No costs submissions were provided by the defendant, and his conduct included multiple adjournments and unsupported arguments.

• Costs were fixed at $15,000, slightly reduced from the $15,569.41 claimed, to reflect fairness and proportionality.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and facts of the case

The Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) was the plaintiff in an action against Joseph Avwarute John (“John”), the defendant. On March 10, 2025, the Superior Court of Justice (Ontario), per Kurz J., granted RBC summary judgment against John on three unpaid loans totaling $274,311.33 plus interest. The court also granted summary judgment in favor of RBC on John’s counterclaim, dismissing that counterclaim. The court found no genuine issue for trial on either the claim or the counterclaim.

Discussion of policy terms and contractual clauses

RBC sought costs totaling $15,569.41 for the action and summary judgment motion, relying on contractual terms in the loan agreements. Two of the three loans included a term for costs on a “solicitor and his own client” scale, which is full indemnity, and the third loan agreement provided for costs on a “solicitor and client” basis. The court cited authorities, including Adelaide Capital Corp. v. Pretoro Developments Inc. and Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Berthin, confirming that courts generally defer to contractual terms for enhanced costs unless conduct justifies a lower scale. The court also referenced Davies v. Clarington (Municipality) regarding the distinction between “solicitor and his own client” and “solicitor and client” costs.

Consideration of the parties’ conduct and costs submissions

The court noted that the matter should have been a relatively simple collection case. John delayed the hearing multiple times and raised novel but unsupported arguments, including frustration of contract. RBC’s costs submissions and attachments were reviewed and found to be fair and appropriate. John did not provide any costs submissions. The court observed that John had previously sought costs for an adjournment, indicating his awareness of cost consequences.

Outcome and final order

The court fixed costs at $15,000, slightly less than the $15,569.41 claimed by RBC, to reflect the fact that one loan called for a lower scale of costs. The order required John to pay costs of the motion and action, fixed at $15,000, to RBC forthwith. RBC was the successful party and the amount ordered in its favor was $15,000 for costs, in addition to the previously awarded judgment for the unpaid loans.