Background
This matter arose from a civil action between Abdul Razak Alyousef, the plaintiff/respondent, and his brother Anes Alyousef along with associated individuals and corporate entities, including two numbered Ontario companies. The underlying judgment was issued by Justice Michael T. Doi of the Superior Court of Justice on August 28, 2023 (2023 ONSC 4899), with amended reasons released January 13, 2025. The dispute involved the division of net profits from shared business interests, with the court ultimately awarding the respondent 50% of the calculated net profits.
The matter came before the Court of Appeal on multiple occasions to resolve residual issues following the main appeal. This “Third Addendum and Costs” decision, heard January 5, 2026, addressed the final outstanding questions: the treatment of an earlier costs award in the appellants’ favour, a mathematical error in the damages recalculation, and the allocation of costs for the proceedings.
The appellants were represented by counsel, while the respondent Abdul Razak Alyousef appeared in person.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal, per Roberts, Trotter and Dawe JJ.A., resolved the remaining issues in three respects. First, the court agreed that an unpaid $4,000 costs award made by Justice Harvison Young on November 6, 2024 in favour of the appellants should be deducted from the damages otherwise payable to the respondent. Second, the court accepted the appellants’ damages recalculation but identified and corrected a one-dollar addition error, fixing the total net profit figure at $939,898.64, of which 50% — the amount owed to the respondent — is $469,949.32.
On the question of appeal costs, the court declined to award costs to either party. Noting that results in the litigation were “somewhat mixed,” the panel concluded that each side should bear its own costs of the proceedings. The court declared these reasons conclusive of all outstanding issues in the matter.
Key Takeaways
- Where appeal outcomes are mixed, courts may exercise their discretion to order no costs rather than require one party to subsidize the other’s litigation expenses.
- Prior costs awards obtained in interlocutory proceedings can be set off against damages ultimately payable to the opposing party, even at the final disposition stage.
- Appellate courts will correct arithmetic errors in damages recalculations regardless of which party submits them, ensuring the final award reflects the intended legal outcome.
Why It Matters
Although brief, this decision illustrates the appellate court’s role in bringing finality to protracted litigation — here requiring multiple addenda to resolve ancillary issues after the main appeal. Practitioners should note the court’s willingness to set off outstanding interlocutory costs awards against final damages, a practical mechanism for ensuring that prior cost orders are not rendered worthless by a non-paying party.
The no-costs order also serves as a reminder that in civil appeals involving mixed results, the usual presumption that costs follow the event can give way to a more equitable allocation. This is particularly relevant in family business disputes where litigation dynamics and party conduct across multiple hearings may complicate a straightforward costs analysis.