Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Central issue concerned the level of partial indemnity costs owed by an unsuccessful, self-represented plaintiff after his two hospital-related actions were dismissed on a summary judgment motion.
• The court applied proportionality and reasonableness principles to assess whether the defendants’ claimed costs, including work on extensive motion materials and complex litigation history, were justified.
• The evidentiary record included a substantial history of hospital privileges litigation and administrative proceedings, which the court accepted as essential context rather than an improper expansion of recoverable costs.
• Objections to costs for case management steps and adjournment-related “thrown away” costs required the judge to parse which parts of the defendants’ bills of costs were properly recoverable.
• The plaintiff’s self-represented status, sincerity, and prior payment of other costs awards were considered but held not to justify any discount from otherwise fair and proportionate partial indemnity costs.
• The court ultimately fixed costs significantly below the defendants’ actual legal spend (about 60%), illustrating that costs awards are an indemnity and only a partial recovery of fees.

Facts of the case

Dr. Manoj Talwar, a physician, brought two civil actions in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Grand River Hospital, St. Mary’s General Hospital, and a range of senior hospital leaders and physicians. These actions arose from a long-running dispute over his hospital privileges and related institutional decisions. The underlying litigation did not occur in a vacuum: the costs reasons refer to a broader “privileges dispute” and a history of both litigation and administrative proceedings concerning Dr. Talwar’s relationship with the hospitals and their medical leadership. The pleadings in the Second Action were described as being very close to identical to the First Action, indicating that the second claim substantially replicated the first, targeting the same hospital entities and decision-makers and again seeking very large damages. Across both actions, Dr. Talwar advanced claims for “very sizeable sums” against the hospitals and individual defendants. The decision on costs makes clear that the magnitude of the damages claimed was significant enough that the defendants were justified in retaining senior and experienced counsel and in investing considerable resources to defend the claims through an extensive motion record.

Procedural history and prior decision

Before the costs ruling, the defendants brought a motion for summary judgment in the First Action and addressed, at the same time, the Second Action, which closely mirrored the first. After full argument and the filing of detailed motion materials and a factum, the court dismissed Dr. Talwar’s proceedings in a prior decision, reported as 2025 ONSC 6304. That merits decision resolved the substance of the dispute in favour of the defendants, disposing of both actions. In addition, there had been a related proceeding in the Divisional Court (DC-24-0306, Hamilton). In the earlier reasons, the judge had already indicated that there would be no order as to costs in that Divisional Court matter, leaving only the Superior Court actions to be addressed in the present costs ruling. The result was that, following dismissal of the two Superior Court actions at first instance, the only remaining live issue for the trial judge was how to fix costs between the parties in a fair and proportionate way.

The parties’ positions on costs

After the dismissal of the actions, the defendants sought their partial indemnity costs in accordance with the usual rule that the successful party is presumptively entitled to costs. Their claim was grounded in established Ontario authority on costs, including the presumption of partial indemnity and the framework for reasonable fees guided by proportionality and fair expectations. They filed detailed bills of costs, claiming approximately $50,329.05 in respect of the First Action and $5,764.00 in respect of the Second Action, and submitted brief argument to explain why these amounts were consistent with the governing principles. Dr. Talwar advanced a series of objections. His “primary request” was that the question of costs before the Superior Court be reserved to the Court of Appeal, ostensibly because there were “live appeals” and because, in his view, reserving costs would be cleaner and avoid inconsistent outcomes. He argued that reserving costs can promote judicial economy and avoid duplication, but he did not provide case law to support this approach in the context of trial-level costs after a dismissal. He also made a broader plea that any costs award should be “modest,” stressing that a high damages claim does not automatically justify a high costs award, and emphasising that his own conduct was marked by “sincerity of belief” rather than any vexatious intent.

Key legal principles on costs and self-representation

The court rejected the idea of reserving costs to the Court of Appeal, explaining that this request was contrary to established practice. Costs, the judge emphasised, are to be decided at each step of the process by the court that hears that step; appeal courts do not welcome efforts by trial judges to offload their responsibilities “upstairs.” In addressing Dr. Talwar’s plea for modest costs, the judge confirmed that while a high damages claim does not automatically dictate a higher award, the amount at stake is directly relevant to what is reasonable for a defending party to spend in protecting itself. The larger the potential exposure, the more justified a defendant is in incurring substantial legal fees to prepare a robust defence. The decision also squarely addressed the impact of self-representation. Dr. Talwar argued that his self-represented status and good faith should mitigate any costs award. The court responded that partial indemnity costs are fundamentally an indemnity to the successful party, not a sanction imposed on the loser. They are designed to compensate, at least in part, the legal expenses actually incurred by the successful litigant. On that logic, the plaintiff’s self-represented status does not justify discounting what would otherwise be fair, reasonable and proportionate partial indemnity costs. The fact that Dr. Talwar had already paid other costs awards, and that further costs might increase his financial pressure, was not considered a valid reason to reduce a fair and proportionate award in these proceedings.

Treatment of specific objections to the bills of costs

Several of Dr. Talwar’s objections required a more granular review of the defendants’ bills of costs. First, he objected to costs claimed for case management events. The judge accepted that objection in principle, holding that costs are generally not awarded for case management steps unless a case management judge expressly orders otherwise. Only a small part of the claimed amounts related to case management, and the court adjusted the final award by excluding those portions. Second, Dr. Talwar argued that it was improper to rely on the “broader hospital privileges history” or the large amount claimed to justify the costs. The judge disagreed, finding that the historic record of the privileges dispute was “essential context” for the motion. It was appropriate and necessary for the defendants to present that background in detail in order for the court to understand the issues. However, the judge also confirmed that the defendants were not seeking, and could not properly seek, the costs of prior proceedings; their claim related only to the current actions and the summary judgment process. Third, Dr. Talwar challenged the inclusion of motion costs associated with the first appearance in January 2024, including preparation for a motion that was adjourned. The court held that the costs up to January 2024—including preparing motion materials and a factum—were recoverable as partial indemnity costs of the overall proceeding because they were essential to the summary judgment motion. The judge accepted that substantial “thrown away” costs on the adjournment itself would not be appropriate, but found that the amounts actually in issue under this head were very small. Finally, after reviewing the bills in detail, the court concluded that there was no excessive duplication in the defendants’ legal team’s efforts. Instead, there was appropriate delegation of work to junior professionals under the supervision of senior counsel. Given that Dr. Talwar had sued both the hospitals and individual defendants for very large amounts, he could not be surprised that they responded with a well-documented and expertly presented defence.

Outcome of the costs decision and overall result

On the Second Action, the court found that relatively few incremental costs had been incurred. The pleading in that action was “close to identical” to that in the First Action, no statement of defence had been filed, and only a modest amount of extra work was needed to address dismissal of the Second Action alongside the First. The court therefore fixed partial indemnity costs of the Second Action at $2,500 plus HST, payable by Dr. Talwar within 30 days. For the First Action, the judge recognised that the defendants were reasonable in bringing and vigorously litigating a motion for summary judgment. Complexity in that motion largely came from the long history of litigation and administrative proceedings arising from the privileges dispute. The court excluded costs associated with case management and with any “thrown away” portion of the January 2024 adjournment, but otherwise accepted that the bills of costs fairly reflected the work reasonably required for a complex, high-stakes defence. The judge fixed the partial indemnity costs of the First Action at $45,000 plus HST, again payable within 30 days. In aggregate, the partial indemnity costs awarded—$47,500 plus HST—amounted to about 60% of the defendants’ actual legal costs, which the court characterised as within the normal range for such awards. Taken together with the earlier 2025 decision dismissing both actions, the overall outcome is that the defendants—Grand River Hospital, St. Mary’s General Hospital, and the associated individual defendants—emerge as the successful parties. Dr. Talwar’s claims were dismissed, no damages were awarded in his favour, and instead he was ordered to pay a total of $47,500 plus applicable HST in costs to the defendants, representing the full quantified monetary award in their favour in these proceedings.