Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Multiple cash and cheque advances totaling $53,000 were admitted as unpaid loans from the plaintiff to the defendant.
• Default judgment procedure required the court to treat the pleaded facts as admitted but still scrutinize whether they justified judgment.
• The deemed admissions and evidence established the existence of loan agreements and a clear breach by non-repayment.
• The plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages failed due to the absence of evidence of misconduct warranting punishment beyond compensation.
• A request for substantial indemnity costs was rejected because there was no reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct to justify elevated costs.
• Partial indemnity costs were fixed at $2,500 in the absence of a bill of costs, as a fair and proportionate amount for the unsuccessful party to pay.

Factual background

The case arises from a series of loans advanced by the plaintiff, Darryl Bickle, to the defendant, Navin Singh. The loans were made over several months in 2024 and consisted of four separate advances. On July 25, 2024, the plaintiff advanced $3,000 to the defendant. On August 6, 2024, he advanced an additional $2,000. The following day, August 7, 2024, the plaintiff provided a further $38,000 to the defendant by cheque. Finally, on October 15, 2024, the plaintiff advanced another $10,000. In total, the plaintiff alleged that he advanced $53,000 to the defendant and that none of these amounts were repaid. The statement of claim did not allege that the loans were to bear interest; the core claim was simply for repayment of the principal amounts advanced.

Procedural posture and default judgment

The matter came before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice as a motion for default judgment. The defendant did not defend the action, so the plaintiff sought judgment based on the unchallenged statement of claim and supporting material. Under Rule 19 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, when a defendant is noted in default, the factual allegations in the statement of claim are deemed to be admitted. However, the court emphasized that the granting of default judgment is not automatic. Even where facts are deemed admitted, the motions judge must carefully scrutinize those admitted facts, along with any evidence filed, to determine whether the plaintiff is legally entitled to the relief sought. The court referred to appellate authority confirming that a judge on a default judgment motion is entitled to examine both the deemed admissions in the pleadings and any evidence tendered to ensure that the claim is properly made out before entering judgment.

Liability for unpaid loans

On the admitted facts, the court found that the plaintiff had clearly established that he loaned money to the defendant and that the sums remained unpaid. The sequence and amounts of the loans were specifically pled and not disputed. Relying on the principle that a party who receives money under a loan agreement and fails to repay as agreed is in breach of contract, the court held that the plaintiff had proven a breach of the loan agreements. The total of the advances was $53,000, and there was no evidence of any partial repayment or set-off. Accordingly, the court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the full principal amount of $53,000 as claimed.

Requests for punitive damages and substantial indemnity costs

In addition to the principal debt, the plaintiff sought punitive damages. Punitive damages are reserved for exceptional cases involving misconduct that is so malicious, oppressive, or high-handed that it offends the court’s sense of decency and requires punishment beyond ordinary compensation. In this case, the court found no evidentiary foundation for such an award. There was no evidence of conduct by the defendant that would justify punishment or denunciation beyond the compensatory judgment for the unpaid loans. The claim for punitive damages was therefore rejected. The plaintiff also requested substantial indemnity costs, a higher costs scale generally reserved for cases involving an offer to settle that triggers such costs or where a party’s conduct has been reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous. The court cited established authority that elevated costs should be awarded only in these exceptional circumstances. On the record before it, the court found nothing in the defendant’s conduct that reached this high threshold. There had been no offer to settle that would trigger substantial indemnity costs, and the evidence did not show the kind of misconduct that would warrant such an exceptional award. As a result, the court declined to order substantial indemnity costs and instead applied the usual partial indemnity standard.

Costs assessment and final outcome

With substantial indemnity costs denied, the court turned to fixing costs on a partial indemnity basis. No bill of costs was provided by the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the court is required to set an amount that is fair, reasonable, and proportionate for the unsuccessful party to pay, taking into account the nature of the proceeding, the issues, and the work reasonably required. Drawing on appellate guidance that costs must be objectively reasonable and proportionate, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at $2,500. This amount was found to be an appropriate reflection of the effort involved in bringing the default judgment motion and the overall modest complexity of the case. In the result, the court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff, Darryl Bickle, for $53,000 representing the unpaid loans, plus $2,500 in partial indemnity costs, with interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act. No separate punitive damages were awarded. This means the total quantified monetary amount ordered in favour of the successful party was $55,500, exclusive of interest, with the precise interest amount to be calculated under the statute rather than fixed in the reasons.