Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Contested attempt by the self-represented applicant to oppose confirmation of an Assessment Officer’s report on legal fees without adequately particularizing alleged errors of law or fact
• Extent of the court’s discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01 in fixing fair, reasonable, and proportionate costs following an unsuccessful appeal from an assessment
• Impact of the applicant’s litigation conduct—including failure to file a factum, to serve an appeal book, and to comply with timetables—on the quantum and scale of costs
• Reasonableness of the respondent law firm’s hours, staffing, and dockets, including duplication of counsel and clerical entries, in light of proportionality and access-to-justice concerns
• Role of an unaccepted offer to settle (for dismissal plus modest costs) in the court’s costs analysis, and the respondent’s choice not to seek elevated r. 49 costs despite that offer
• Determination that a reduced lump-sum award of $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements appropriately balances indemnification, proportionality, and the parties’ reasonable expectations

Background and factual context

The proceedings arise out of a costs and legal-fees dispute between an individual client, Ali Noori, and his former lawyers, Chagpar & Associates, heard in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The underlying issue concerned an Assessment Officer’s report dated February 16, 2023, which dealt with the firm’s fees and disbursements. Mr. Noori, as applicant, sought to oppose the confirmation of that report, effectively challenging the outcome of the assessment of the law firm’s account.
On October 27, 2025, the court (Merritt J.) dismissed the applicant’s motion to oppose confirmation of the Assessment Officer’s report. That decision resolved the merits of the assessment appeal in favour of the respondent law firm, leaving only the question of costs to be determined. Following the dismissal of the motion, the court invited written submissions on costs if the parties could not agree.
The respondent, Chagpar & Associates, filed written submissions seeking partial indemnity costs, while the applicant did not file any costs submissions within the time set by the court. The respondent initially asked for $19,352.36 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 60 days.

Procedural history and conduct of the parties

The court’s costs endorsement focuses heavily on the way the appeal from the Assessment Officer’s report was conducted. The applicant advanced his appeal on the basis of the grounds of appeal set out in his Notice of Motion, alleging errors of law and/or fact by the Assessment Officer. However, he failed to particularize those alleged errors in any further written material. He also did not file a factum, which meant that the respondent had to address all the grounds listed in the notice without the benefit of a clear, narrowed articulation of the issues.
In addition, the applicant did not serve an appeal book. As a result, Chagpar & Associates took on tasks that would ordinarily fall to the appellant. The firm prepared a Transcript Record and an Endorsement Record to assist the court in hearing the appeal. The respondent also delivered affidavit evidence, which the applicant then responded to, leading to a responding affidavit and cross-examination.
The file generated multiple procedural attendances. The parties appeared at five Civil Practice Court attendances and two case conferences. Some of those attendances were necessitated by the applicant’s failure to comply with timetables. The judge noted that while the matter itself was not complex, the applicant’s conduct had the practical effect of unnecessarily lengthening and complicating the proceeding, which in turn influenced the ultimate costs disposition.

Legal framework on costs and assessment of reasonableness

In determining costs, the court applied the statutory and common law framework governing costs in Ontario civil proceedings. Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act gives the court broad discretion over costs of and incidental to a proceeding, including from whom and to what extent they shall be paid. Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure sets out the factors to be considered, such as time spent, complexity, rates charged, the result achieved, and the conduct of the parties.
Merritt J. reviewed and applied modern authorities emphasizing that costs awards serve multiple purposes: to partially indemnify successful parties for litigation expenses; to facilitate access to justice; to discourage frivolous or ill-founded litigation; to sanction improper conduct; and to encourage settlement. Appellate and trial decisions such as Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 100 Bloor Street West Corporation v. Barry's Bootcamp Canada Inc., and Youkhana v. Pearson are referenced to underscore that costs must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, and that the court must assess not only the subjective expectations of the parties but what is objectively reasonable in the circumstances.
The court reiterated that a proper costs assessment requires a detailed consideration of the specific factors in r. 57.01, followed by a “step back” to test whether the resulting figure is overall fair and reasonable in light of access-to-justice concerns and the risk of “chilling” legitimate litigation. The judge also cited authority for the principle that courts should not micro-manage or second-guess counsel’s time unless the hours billed are obviously excessive or represent “overkill,” while still recognizing that duplication of effort or clerical billing must be scrutinized.

Review of the respondent’s costs claim

The bulk of the work for the respondent was undertaken by Mr. Fahad Warraich, called to the bar in 2023, at an hourly rate of $225. The firm’s dockets also recorded time for a legal assistant and a paralegal. On review, the judge considered which parts of that time were properly compensable as legal work and which were essentially clerical. The endorsement notes that some of the assistant and paralegal work was clerical in nature, and the court therefore reduced the fees by $360 on that basis.
The court also observed an element of duplication. For example, both Mr. Warraich and Ms. Jessica Hewlett attended the cross-examination, and the total time Mr. Warraich billed—67.8 hours—appeared high for a matter of limited complexity, even accounting for the numerous court attendances. Those observations led the judge to conclude that the full amount claimed, $19,352.36, was higher than what was fair and proportionate in the circumstances.
Another factor was the respondent’s settlement posture. On February 27, 2025, Chagpar & Associates made an offer to settle, proposing a dismissal of the application and costs fixed at $5,922.18. While Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure can justify elevated costs where a party unreasonably refuses a reasonable offer to settle, the respondent did not seek costs on an elevated scale in this case. Instead, the offer was treated as a component of the overall reasonableness and expectations analysis rather than as a trigger for a strict Rule 49 consequence.

Outcome of the appeal and costs decision

On the merits, the earlier decision of October 27, 2025 dismissed the applicant’s motion to oppose the confirmation of the Assessment Officer’s report. That meant the Assessment Officer’s report of February 16, 2023 stood as issued, and the respondent law firm’s assessment outcome remained intact. The applicant obtained no substantive relief from the court concerning the assessment of the legal fees.
In the costs endorsement rendered on November 27, 2025, the court concluded that Chagpar & Associates was “entirely successful” on the appeal and therefore presumptively entitled to its costs. Having considered the time spent, the rates charged, the relatively modest complexity of the matter, the conduct of both parties (including the applicant’s failure to file key documents and to comply with timetables), and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the judge fixed costs on a lump-sum basis.
Rather than awarding the full $19,352.36 claimed, the court held that a global award of $15,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, was fair, reasonable, and proportionate in the circumstances. This figure reflected reductions for clerical work and some duplication, yet still afforded meaningful indemnification to the successful party, while tempering any chilling effect on access to justice.
Accordingly, the successful party in the litigation is the respondent, Chagpar & Associates. The court ordered that the applicant, Ali Noori, pay costs in the total amount of $15,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within 60 days, in addition to the underlying result that left the Assessment Officer’s report in place.