Costs decision following an application in which the municipality obtained a permanent injunction restricting the respondent’s use of an outdoor wood burning furnace for part of each year due to interference with neighbouring properties.
Both parties sought partial indemnity costs and relied on settlement positions to justify their claims.
The court rejected the respondent’s argument that his prior settlement offer placed the municipality in a worse position than the judgment, noting that the offer required payment of legal fees and equipment installation costs.
While the municipality succeeded in obtaining an injunction, the relief granted was narrower than requested because the restriction applied only for part of the year.
Considering partial success and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded reduced costs to the municipality.
