TORONTO, ON – The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ordered a self-represented man to pay $15,000 in legal costs to the Royal Bank of Canada after he unsuccessfully defended a lawsuit over more than a quarter of a million dollars in unpaid loans1. The decision, released on September 4, 2025, emphasized the borrower’s conduct, which included numerous delays and baseless arguments, and upheld contractual agreements that required him to pay the bank’s legal fees at an elevated rate.
The ruling on costs follows a decisive victory for the bank earlier in the year. On March 10, 2025, Justice Kurz had granted summary judgment in favour of RBC, finding there was no genuine issue requiring a full trial. That judgment ordered Joseph Avwarute John to repay three outstanding loans totalling $274,311.33 plus accumulated interest. At the same time, the court dismissed a counterclaim Mr. John had filed against the bank, also finding it presented no genuine issue for trial. A summary judgment is a legal procedure used to resolve a case without a full trial when the core facts are not in dispute and one party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Following its success on the merits of the case, RBC brought a motion seeking to recover its legal expenses from Mr. John. The bank requested a total of $15,569.41. This figure covered the costs associated with the main action and the summary judgment motion itself. RBC specified that it was not seeking costs for certain previous court attendances where costs had already been determined, nor for the costs related to an appeal Mr. John had launched in the Divisional Court concerning an earlier adjournment order. However, the bank’s request did include the legal fees for an appearance before Justice Mills, where Mr. John had successfully obtained an adjournment pending his appeal, an appeal that was ultimately unsuccessful. The costs for that particular attendance had been reserved for the judge hearing the summary judgment motion to decide.
Despite the opportunity to respond to the bank’s request, Mr. John did not file any submissions regarding the costs. Justice Kurz noted in his decision that the ruling was delivered several months after the submissions were filed due to an administrative error in the court system and the pressures of his own judicial caseload.
In his detailed analysis, Justice Kurz began by outlining the fundamental legal principles that govern the awarding of costs in Ontario. Citing section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, he affirmed the court’s broad discretion to decide who pays the costs of a legal proceeding and in what amount. He referenced established case law, explaining that modern cost rules serve several purposes: to indemnify successful parties for their litigation expenses, to encourage settlement, and to discourage inappropriate behaviour and frivolous claims or defences. The ultimate goal, as articulated by the Ontario Court of Appeal, is to fix a “fair and reasonable amount that should be paid by the unsuccessful parties.”
A key factor in this case was the specific language contained within the loan agreements between RBC and Mr. John. The bank argued for an award of “enhanced costs” based on these contracts. Two of the three loan agreements stipulated that in the event of default and legal action, Mr. John would be responsible for the bank’s costs on a “solicitor and his own client” scale. The third agreement specified costs on a “solicitor and client” basis. These scales are significantly higher than the default “partial indemnity” scale typically awarded. “Solicitor and client” costs, often referred to as substantial indemnity, are generally calculated as 1.5 times the partial indemnity amount. “Solicitor and his own client” costs represent what is effectively full indemnity, meaning a near complete reimbursement of the successful party’s legal fees.
Justice Kurz explained that courts will generally enforce such contractual terms. He cited legal precedent establishing that a judge should defer to these clauses “except where there has been conduct that militates against it.” In this instance, there was no evidence of any misconduct by RBC that would justify ignoring the agreements.
The judge then turned his attention to Mr. John’s handling of his own defence. He characterized the matter as what “should have been a relatively simply collection matter.” However, he noted that Mr. John “delayed the hearing of this motion a number of times and offered a number of novel but unsupported arguments, including frustration of contract.” Furthermore, Justice Kurz described Mr. John’s counterclaim against the bank as being “devoid of merit.” This conduct, which unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings, was a significant factor in the costs decision.
In a particularly telling part of the ruling, Justice Kurz considered what Mr. John’s own reasonable expectations regarding costs should have been. Although Mr. John filed no submissions on the issue, the judge recalled a previous attendance on October 17, 2024. On that day, Mr. John was granted an adjournment he had requested. RBC’s counsel sought $1,000 in costs for the aborted hearing. In response, Mr. John made a costs request of his own, seeking $3,175. He justified this amount by claiming an hourly rate of $145, which he said he charged clients as an immigration consultant, in addition to a $1,000 counsel fee. Justice Kurz concluded that, “In light of John’s professed legal acumen, his own billing claims, and the number of court attendances before this matter was finally argued, RBC’s costs request should have been within John’s reasonable expectations.”
Justice Kurz reviewed RBC’s submitted bill of costs and found the fees charged by its lawyers to be “most reasonable.” The hourly rate for two senior lawyers, each with over 30 years of experience, was $275 per hour. The judge commented that this rate would have been reasonable even if a lower scale of costs were being applied.
Ultimately, the judge determined that RBC was entitled to its costs on the enhanced scale provided for in the loan agreements. However, he made a slight adjustment to the amount requested. In recognition of the fact that one of the three loan contracts called for the slightly lower “solicitor and client” scale rather than the full indemnity “solicitor and his own client” scale, he reduced the award. Instead of granting the full $15,569.41 sought by the bank, he fixed the costs at an even $15,000, describing this amount as “fair, reasonable and proportional in the circumstances.”
The final order requires Joseph Avwarute John to pay costs of the motion and the action, fixed at $15,000, to the Royal Bank of Canada forthwith.
Read more Ontario legal news here.
