Following a decision granting judgment in favour of the respondents on an application involving a mortgagee's right to sell property, the respondents sought costs of $270,292.15.
The applicant opposed costs on the basis that the respondents had provided a misleading answer to the court regarding the arm's-length nature of a proposed purchaser, which was subsequently assigned to an entity connected to an investor behind the second mortgage.
The court found the respondents' refusal to answer follow-up questions about the assignment and the relationship between the purchaser and the investor raised serious doubts about the accuracy of representations made during the proceeding.
Exercising its discretion to depart from the general principle that costs follow the event, the court declined to award costs to the successful party as a sanction for non-cooperation with the court.
