Royal Bank of Canada v. Everest Group Inc.

Royal Bank of Canada v. Everest Group Inc. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2024-08-08 Neutral citation 2024 ONCA 611 Docket numbers COA-23-CV-0380, COA-23-CV-0385, OA-23-CV-0382 Judges Roberts, Lois B.; Miller, Bradley; Gomery, Sally A. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Royal Bank of Canada v. Everest Group Inc., 2024 ONCA 611 DATE: 20240808 DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0380, COA-23-CV-0382 & COA-23-CV-0385 Roberts, Miller and Gomery JJ.A. DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0380 BETWEEN Royal Bank of Canada Plaintiff and Everest Group Inc.*, Yousaf Jameel Khan, also known as Yousaf Jamil, Zarmina S. Khan and Shahid Saleem Khawaja Defendants (Appellants/ Respondent by way of cross-appeal*) and Paramount Franchise Group Inc.*, Paramount Franchise Inc.*, Fakih Group Inc.*, 2302733 Ontario Inc.*, Mohamad Fakih*, Holly Graham* and Michel Gagnon Third Parties (Respondents/ Appellants by way of cross-appeal*) DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0382 AND BETWEEN Premium Host Inc. Plaintiff (Appellant/ Respondent by way of cross-appeal) and Paramount Franchise Group Inc.*, Paramount Franchise Inc.*, 2302733 Ontario Inc.*, Michel Gagnon, Mohamad Fakih* and Holly Graham* Defendants (Respondents/ Appellants by way of cross-appeal*) AND BETWEEN Paramount Franchise Group Inc., Paramount Franchise Inc., and 2302733 Ontario Inc. Plaintiffs by Counterclaim and Premium Host Inc., Gul Nawaz Sheikh, Shahid Khawaja, and Sardar Samiuddin Khan Defendants to the Counterclaim DOCKET: COA-23-CV-0385 AND BETWEEN Royal Bank of Canada Plaintiff and Versatile Holdings Inc.*, Sardar Samiuddin Khan, also known as Sardar M. Khan Samiuddin, Nida Shahid and Shahid Saleem Khawaja Defendants (Appellants/ Respondent by way of cross-appeal*) and Paramount Franchise Group Inc.*, Paramount Franchise Inc.*, Fakih Group Inc.*, 2302733 Ontario Inc.*, Mohamad Fakih*, Holly Graham* and Michel Gagnon Third Parties (Respondents/ Appellants by way of cross-appeal*) Adrienne Boudreau, Daniel Hamson and Maria Arabella Robles, for the appellants/respondents by way of cross appeal Versatile Holdings Group Inc., Everest Group Inc. and Premium Host Inc. Justin Nasseri and Gordon Vance, for the respondents/appellants by way of cross appeal Paramount Franchise Group Inc., Paramount Franchise Inc., Fakih Group Inc., 2302733 Ontario Inc., Mohamad Fakih and Holly Graham Heard: June 26, 2024 On appeal from the judgments of Justice Marie-Andrée Vermette of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 3, 2023, with reasons reported at 2023 ONSC 1507, and from the costs order dated June 26, 2023, with reasons reported at 2023 ONSC 3808. COSTS ENDORSEMENT [1] This grouped set of appeals and cross-appeals from three proceedings were heard on June 26, 2024, with reasons given July 22, 2024. The trial judge’s judgments were upheld and all of the parties were entirely unsuccessful before this court. [2] At the oral hearing, the parties advised that they had agreed on a cap of a maximum of $40,000 in costs to be awarded on each set of appeals and cross‑appeals. They requested the opportunity to make further costs submissions in writing after judgment was delivered. [3] The franchisees argue that, as all parties were unsuccessful before this court, no costs should be awarded. [4] The franchisor parties argue that they enjoyed the greater success, and should be awarded costs. It argues that although the franchisees brought three appeals and the franchisor three cross-appeals, by the time the appeal was argued the franchisees pursued only two of appeals and the franchisor only one of the cross-appeals. Accordingly, the franchisor parties argue, they should be awarded costs of the two appeals, and have costs awarded against them for the failed cross-appeal. [5] We do not agree that it would be appropriate to parse the various elements of the appeals and cross-appeals in the manner the franchisor parties propose. All of the appeals and cross-appeals were argued together. In any event, we do not agree with the franchisor parties’ submission that they enjoyed greater success on appeal. As none of the parties enjoyed any degree of success before this court, it is appropriate that there be no award of costs. DISPOSITION [6] There is no order as to costs. “L.B. Roberts J.A.” “B.W. Miller J.A.” “S. Gomery J.A.”