Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The plaintiff, Prince Mansoor, successfully obtained leave to amend his statement of claim to add four new defendants: Khurram Mirza, Saleem Moosa, Khurram Shroff, and Dwain Pereira.
• Central to the costs dispute was whether the plaintiff could be considered wholly successful, given that the limitations defence remains unresolved.
• Uncertainty arose over whether the plaintiff actually incurred legal costs, as his costs submissions appeared to be filed in a self-represented capacity without a filed notice of intention to act in person.
• Conduct by the plaintiff — specifically the format and timing of motion materials — contributed to delays in hearing the motion.
• No basis was found to award costs on an elevated (substantial indemnity) scale or to grant pre-emptive enforcement remedies.
• Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis and apportioned equally among the four added defendants, not on a joint and several basis.

Facts of the case

This matter arises from an action brought by plaintiff Prince Mansoor against iMining Technologies Inc. and others in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court File No. CV-22-676691-0000). By reasons dated April 29, 2025 (Mansoor v. iMining et al, 2026 ONSC 2533), Associate Justice R. Frank granted the plaintiff leave to amend his statement of claim to add Khurram Mirza, Saleem Moosa, Khurram Shroff, and Dwain Pereira as defendants. The order also preserved the added defendants' right to plead the limitation period as a defence. The parties were directed to attempt to agree on costs of the motion; having failed to do so, they filed written submissions, which formed the basis of this costs endorsement dated June 23, 2026.

Positions of the parties

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $88,979.70, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, or alternatively on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $60,284.26. He argued he was entirely successful because leave was granted and all grounds advanced in opposition — including the limitation period, failure to plead a viable cause of action, non-compensable prejudice, abuse of process, and the argument that funds paid into court justified refusing joinder — were rejected. The plaintiff also contended that the opposing parties' conduct made the proceedings unnecessarily complex and expensive, justifying elevated costs.

Defendant Mirza opposed, submitting that the plaintiff was not wholly successful because the limitations issue had not been finally determined, that his own opposition was limited to the limitation period ground only, and that the costs claimed were disproportionate and resulted from the plaintiff's own piecemeal and disorganized preparation of motion materials. Mirza proposed that costs either be made in the cause or fixed at $8,000 to $10,000 all inclusive, divided among the responding parties individually. The remaining added defendants — Moosa, Shroff, and Pereira — echoed these submissions, further raising uncertainty about whether any indemnifiable expense was actually incurred given the plaintiff's apparent self-represented status, and arguing against any pre-emptive enforcement remedies.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Associate Justice Frank considered the parties' written submissions and applied the factors set out in Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, guided by the purposive approach to costs articulated in 394 Lakeshore Oakville Holdings Inc. v. Misek, 2010 ONSC 7238. The court noted that costs rules serve to indemnify successful litigants, facilitate access to justice, discourage frivolous claims and defences, discourage inappropriate conduct, and encourage settlements, with fairness and reasonableness as the overriding principles, as confirmed in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, 2004 CanLII 14579 (ON CA).

The court made several key findings. First, while the plaintiff succeeded on the motion, the limitations issue — the central dispute — remained unresolved, as leave was granted without prejudice to the added defendants' right to raise it as a defence. Second, the format and timing of materials filed by the plaintiff contributed to the delay in hearing the motion. Third, there was uncertainty as to whether the plaintiff had actually incurred the costs claimed, given the apparent self-represented filing without the required notice. Fourth, applying Davies v. Clarington (Municipality), 2009 ONCA 722 and Boucher, the court held that the quantum claimed was excessive and beyond what an unsuccessful party could reasonably have expected to pay on a motion of this nature. Fifth, no basis existed to award costs on an elevated scale or to grant pre-emptive enforcement remedies at this stage.

Ruling and overall outcome

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis in the total amount of $16,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes. The plaintiff, Prince Mansoor, was the successful party. The $16,000 was apportioned equally among the four added defendants — Khurram Mirza, Saleem Moosa, Khurram Shroff, and Dwain Pereira — at $4,000 each, payable individually and not on a joint and several basis. The costs are payable to the plaintiff in the cause.