C. Pye

Following dismissal of a motion to continue an ex parte interim injunction, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should be denied or reduced due to alleged reprehensible pre‑litigation conduct by the defendant and that the claimed amount was excessive.

The court held that the limited and conflicting evidence regarding pre‑litigation conduct did not justify departing from the general rule that a successful party is entitled to costs.

Partial indemnity costs were appropriate because the plaintiff’s conduct in seeking the injunction was not sufficiently reprehensible to warrant substantial indemnity.

Costs were fixed at $20,397.92 and ordered payable within 60 days.

The plaintiff sought continuation of an ex parte interim injunction and a permanent injunction to prevent nearby blasting associated with residential construction, alleging vibrations would disrupt the alignment of satellite earth stations used for communications services.

The court applied the standard requiring a very strong probability of grave future harm before granting injunctive relief.

Expert evidence from the defendants indicated an extremely low probability of damage under the blasting plan, while the plaintiff’s evidence was largely speculative and lacked detailed technical analysis.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to establish a strong probability of harm on the balance of probabilities.

The motion to continue the injunction was therefore dismissed.