2 total
Costs of appeal awarded on a partial indemnity basis; counsel acting as affiants denied attendance costs.
The plaintiff sought costs of an appeal to the Divisional Court on a substantial indemnity basis.
The Attorney General conceded the plaintiff was entitled to costs but argued they should be on a partial indemnity basis.
The court agreed with the Attorney General, noting that substantial indemnity costs require egregious or vexatious conduct.
The court also disallowed costs for the attendance of two of the plaintiff's counsel who had acted as affiants and were requested to withdraw from the hearing.
Costs were fixed at $13,145 plus disbursements and GST on a partial indemnity basis.
Board held it is not bound by a prior court finding on normal farm practices.
The applicants brought a preliminary motion before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board arguing that the Board was bound by a prior Superior Court decision which found the respondent mushroom farm was not operating in accordance with normal farm practices.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply because the parties were not identical, and that stare decisis did not bind the specialized tribunal on matters within its core expertise.
The Board also declined to admit trial transcripts in lieu of oral evidence, emphasizing the need to hear witnesses directly, and clarified its interpretation of 'normal farm practice' regarding competing land uses.
