Canada Judgment

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Deng v. Han

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the appellant for the Superior Court proceedings and fixed those costs at $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable forthwith.

Court disposition

Costs awarded to the appellant for the Superior Court proceedings.

Orders

  • Costs fixed at $25,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable to the appellant forthwith.

02

Material facts

Parties

Chengyun Deng

Respondent Counsel: Shane Greaves, Benjamin Markusoff

Ping Deng

Respondent Counsel: Shane Greaves, Benjamin Markusoff

Heying Qiu

Respondent Counsel: Shane Greaves, Benjamin Markusoff

Danjing Han

Appellant Counsel: Andrew Ostrom

Amounts and remedies

  • Costs Awarded: CAD 25,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil / Appeal Costs Decision

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The appellant sought an award of costs for the Superior Court proceedings below.
Respondent
The respondents opposed or contested the extent of costs sought by the appellant.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rules of Civil Procedure and appellate discretion

    Courts have discretion to award costs to the successful party.

  2. 02

    Court practice and taxation principles

    Costs awards may be fixed to include disbursements and HST.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion to award costs to the appellant for the Superior Court proceedings and fixed those costs at $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable forthwith.

Court disposition

Costs awarded to the appellant for the Superior Court proceedings.

  • Costs fixed at $25,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable to the appellant forthwith.

Source and reliance status

Court of Appeal for Ontario · 13 February 2026

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Judgment· 13 February 2026

2026 ONCA 110

Deng v. Han Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-02-13 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 110 Docket numbers COA-23-CV-0596 Judges Tulloch, Michael H.; Pepall, Sarah E.; Pomerance, Renee M. Subject Civil Decision Content

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Deng v. Han, 2026 ONCA 110 DATE: 20260213 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0596 Tulloch C.J.O., Pepall and Pomerance JJ.A.

BETWEEN Chengyun Deng, Ping Deng and Heying Qiu Plaintiffs (Respondents) and Danjing Han Defendant (Appellant) Andrew Ostrom, for the appellant Shane Greaves and Benjamin Markusoff, for the respondents Heard: March 18, 2025 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Andra Pollak of the Superior Court of Justice, dated May 26, 2023. COSTS: REASONS FOR DECISION [1] We have received and reviewed the costs submissions of both parties and find that costs should be awarded to the appellant for the Superior Court proceedings below. [2] Accordingly, costs is hereby fixed in the amount of $25,000, inclusive of HST and disbursements, and payable to the appellant forthwith. “M. Tulloch C.J.O.” “S.E. Pepall J.A.” “R. Pomerance J.A.”

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

No structured authorities are available for this judgment.

Refer to the full judgment and official source for citations that have not yet been extracted.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.