Ontario Court: Sun v Teefy Development Costs Awarded Substantial Indemnity

• The Ontario Superior Court ordered Ms. Sun and her husband to pay $34,455.90 in substantial indemnity costs to defendants in *Sun v. Teefy Development, 2026 ONSC 4983*.
• The costs followed a lengthy history of litigation, including Ms. Sun's default on a real estate transaction and multiple unsuccessful lawsuits against various parties.
• Justice R. Cary Boswell struck out the plaintiffs' personal injury claim, finding no clear legal basis and noting the litigation had run its course.
• The court found the plaintiffs were experienced and aware of potential cost awards, despite being self-represented, justifying the elevated costs.
• The decision underscores the court's use of substantial indemnity costs to deter vexatious litigation and ensure claims have a sound legal foundation.

The court acknowledged that the self-represented plaintiffs could not be expected to grasp all the intricacies of civil law or the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Justice Boswell underscored that the plaintiffs were not unsophisticated; they were experienced, familiar with the concept of costs, and aware of the reasonably expected range of cost awards.

The Ontario Superior Court has ordered plaintiffs to pay $34,455.90 in substantial indemnity costs following protracted litigation stemming from a failed real estate transaction. The decision, in the case of *Sun v. Teefy Development, 2026 ONSC 4983*, marks the latest development in a series of legal actions initiated by Ms. Sun, who, along with her husband, was ultimately unsuccessful in pursuing a personal injury claim.

The dispute originated in Fall 2016 when Ms. Sun agreed to purchase a new home from Teefy Development. After Ms. Sun defaulted on the transaction, Teefy was forced to resell the property at a loss. A February 2021 trial judgment awarded Teefy damages of $240,562.78, including pre-judgment interest, plus $30,000 in costs, a decision Ms. Sun unsuccessfully appealed. Subsequently, Ms. Sun filed multiple lawsuits, including against real estate agents Mr. Cheng and Mr. Wang (which was summarily dismissed), and against her own trial lawyer, Ms. Shi, and Teefy's trial lawyer, Mr. Latimer. The latter suit was dismissed as vexatious under Rule 2.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194. Another suit against Teefy was also dismissed under the same rule.

In December 2024, Ms. Sun and her husband initiated the present claim against Teefy, Mr. Latimer, Mr. Cheng, and Mr. Wang. The court later dismissed the claim against Mr. Latimer on consent on May 11. On July 13, Justice R. Cary Boswell of the Superior Court struck out the plaintiffs’ claim against the remaining defendants, finding it difficult to discern a legal basis for their requested relief. Ms. Sun had sought damages for personal injuries, including psychological distress, reputational harm, lost earning capacity, and loss of vision. The substantial indemnity costs award against the plaintiffs followed in September.

Justice Boswell, in awarding the Ontario substantial indemnity costs, determined that while full indemnity costs were not warranted, the case met the exceptional threshold standard for elevated costs. The judge noted that the litigation had fully run its course, emphasizing that the plaintiffs had been afforded every opportunity to advance their claims. Crucially, they had been repeatedly warned about the risks associated with pursuing untenable claims and had been advised of the potential for elevated costs, yet they were given ample opportunity to discontinue their claims.

The court acknowledged that the self-represented plaintiffs could not be expected to grasp all the intricacies of civil law or the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, Justice Boswell underscored that the plaintiffs were not unsophisticated; they were experienced, familiar with the concept of costs, and aware of the reasonably expected range of cost awards. The judge found the awarded amount of $34,455.90 to be fair, reasonable, and proportionate, reflecting the defendants' burden.

Conversely, the court noted that the defendants had been compelled to incur significant legal expenses and had been subjected to prolonged and unnecessary litigation. Their conduct in defending the claims was deemed reasonable throughout the process, further justifying the substantial indemnity costs award against the plaintiffs.

This *Sun v Teefy Development costs award* serves as a clear signal from the Ontario Superior Court regarding its stance on unjustified and vexatious litigation. The repeated dismissals of Ms. Sun's various claims, particularly those under Rule 2.01 for vexatious conduct, highlight the court's commitment to preventing abuse of process. The imposition of elevated costs against a self-represented litigant, despite their lack of legal representation, underscores that the court expects a certain level of understanding regarding the financial risks of pursuing claims without a sound legal foundation.

The decision reinforces the principle that litigation must have a legitimate purpose and cannot be used as a tool for harassment or to re-litigate matters that have already been decided. The court's willingness to impose significant financial penalties, such as these substantial indemnity costs, acts as a deterrent against plaintiffs who persist with untenable injury claim costs Canada, even after being warned of the potential consequences. It ensures that parties who are forced to defend against such claims are not unduly burdened by legal expenses, thereby promoting efficiency and fairness within the justice system.

This decision underscores the Ontario Superior Court's willingness to impose substantial indemnity costs against plaintiffs who pursue untenable or vexatious claims, even if self-represented. Lawyers should advise clients on the significant financial risks of engaging in protracted litigation without a sound legal basis, as courts will use elevated cost awards to deter abuse of process and ensure litigation has run its course.

Source: Original reporting via Canadian Lawyer Magazine