merely a witness. He submits he was therefore in no way involved
to the extent that costs against him as a non-party ought to
1) Substantial or Full Indemnity
 Having regard to their offers to settle and Rule 49 [of the
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194], the defendants
are prima face entitled to costs of partial indemnity up to August
5, 2016 and substantial indemnity thereafter. What moves the
costs consideration beyond this entitlement are the findings of
this court in regard to the reprehensible and dishonest conduct of
Manny Marcos in advancing the plaintiff’s claim. The same findings necessitate a consideration of the defendants’ request to
order costs personally against the non-parties.
 The defendants’ written submissions in para. 23(a) to (h)
highlight the extent of the dishonesty perpetuated on behalf of
the plaintiff by Manny Marcos in the conduct of this case. This
includes, inter alia, findings of “fabricated or deceptively manipulated” evidence, false paper trails and false and altered documents, and multiple deliberate lies. Also, as found by this court,
the plaintiff engaged in unreasonable tactics in the conduct of
the case, such as last-minute productions contrary to the court
ordered timeline, and failing to admit uncontroverted facts,
thereby necessitating the calling of witnesses and unnecessarily
extending trial time.
 Full indemnity costs are justified only in very narrow circumstances to sanction particularly egregious conduct on the
part of a party.2 This court is mindful of the law on “the seldom
imposed full indemnity scale of costs” and recognizes “that only
very egregious conduct, such as fraud or deceiving the court, supported the award of costs on a full indemnity basis”.3
 In this case the cumulative instances of dishonesty and
deceit shown by the plaintiff by its principal, Manny Marcos, in
the conduct of this action falls into this exceptional category. It
was truly troubling for this court to observe this egregious deliberate deception by the plaintiff, which became more and more obvious as the trial progressed. When the fair, honest and functional
2 Net Connect Installation Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc. (2017), 140 O.R. (3d) 77,
 O.J. No. 5150, 2017 ONCA 766, at para. 8.
3 Tsymbalarou v. Gordon,  O.J. No. 4927, 2013 ONSC 6406 (S.C.J.),
at paras. 4 and 14.