I have no hesitation in concluding that an award of full indemnity costs is required in the circumstances of this case. I find that the plaintiffs’ conduct, in faking a judgment of this court, constitutes a scurrilous and fraudulent attack on the administration of justice. The plaintiffs’ actions amount to a contemptuous and reckless disregard for the judicial process and were calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice in these proceedings. The plaintiffs’ behaviour was “reprehensible, scandalous and outrageous.” Such reckless attacks on the administration of justice clearly constitute conduct requiring chastisement and deterrence.
 I find that the defendants are entitled to full indemnity costs, payable by the plaintiffs D’Souza and D’Gama forthwith. Costs are awarded as follows:
Gills $14, 617.97
inclusive of disbursements and HST.
 The plaintiffs are prohibited from taking any fresh step in these proceedings until these costs have been paid in full.
Master Dash Order
 There is a subsidiary issue involving an order of Master Dash on April 26, 2011, obtained without notice, granting leave to the plaintiffs to register a certificate of pending litigation against the Property (the CPL order). No CPL has been registered as yet.
 The plaintiffs have refused or been unable to produce the original of Master Dash’s order. The court record apparently contains no original order or endorsed motion record.
 It appears that the CPL order of Master Dash may also be a fake.
 In any event, it was obtained without notice. The noting in default of the Gills was improper and constituted sharp practice.
 In the circumstances, my order shall issue setting aside the CPL order of Master Dash dated April 26, 2011.
Read the decision of Penny J. in John Joseph AKA John D’Souza and Peter D’Gama v. Ritchie James Linton, et al. 2013 ONSC 70 here.