A. Moras

Following a successful appeal regarding a late jury notice, the Ministry of Finance sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis for both the appeal and the motion below.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the issue was novel, or alternatively, that the quantum should be reduced.

The court rejected the novelty argument, noting the issue arose from the respondent's failure to serve a jury notice in time.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded $6,264.40 to the Ministry, payable by a specified date.

The defendant, represented by the Minister of Finance under the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, brought a motion to strike a jury notice served by the plaintiff seven months after the close of pleadings.

The defendant argued the notice should be struck due to the lack of a leave motion, unconscionable delay, prejudice, and because the action was in 'pith and substance' against the Superintendent, which requires a non-jury trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no unconscionable delay or prejudice, and noting that since the Superintendent was not joined as a party, the statutory prohibition against a jury trial did not apply.