Albert Roy

Following dismissal of a $15 million civil claim, the court determined the appropriate costs payable to the successful defendant.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on allegations of bad faith litigation conduct and a rejected Rule 49 settlement offer of $250,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity for the entire proceeding but applied Rule 49 principles, awarding partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter.

The court also addressed the effect of a special fee arrangement between the defendant and its counsel, holding that costs cannot exceed the client’s actual obligation under s. 20(2) of the Solicitors Act.

Costs were fixed in accordance with the reasonable expectations of the parties and the scale of the litigation.

The Superintendent of Bankruptcy appealed a deputy registrar’s decision granting an absolute discharge to bankrupt individuals who had failed to comply with surplus income payment obligations under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The bankrupts had outstanding surplus income payments exceeding $10,000 and had not pursued mediation or other statutory remedies available under the Act.

The court held that s.172(2) of the BIA mandates specific responses where a bankrupt has failed to comply with payment requirements imposed under s.68 and does not permit an absolute discharge in such circumstances.

The deputy registrar exceeded jurisdiction by disregarding the statutory scheme and granting an absolute discharge despite non‑compliance.

The court annulled the discharge and ordered mediation, with a rehearing before a judge if mediation failed.