D. Alderson

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the claim against one defendant entirely, the court determined the appropriate scale and quantum of costs.

The successful defendant sought full indemnity costs based on serious allegations made in the pleadings, including conspiracy, extortion, intimidation, and fraudulent preference.

The plaintiff argued that costs should not be fixed without production of counsel dockets and requested referral to an assessment officer.

The court rejected that submission, noting the presumption that trial or motion judges fix costs absent exceptional circumstances.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded given the breadth of unproven allegations, and the court fixed costs at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion under Rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss a claim brought by a former law firm for inducing breach of contract, interference with economic relations, defamation, conspiracy, extortion, intimidation, abuse of process, and fraudulent conveyance.

The claim arose after the defendant advised former clients of the plaintiff law firm to challenge the enforceability of a fixed‑fee retainer and to seek an assessment of the firm’s accounts.

The court held that advising clients to challenge another lawyer’s fees and representing them in litigation is not actionable and is protected by solicitor‑client privilege and litigation privilege.

The pleadings contained bald allegations lacking material facts and attempted to impose liability for conduct inherent to legal advocacy.

It was plain and obvious that none of the pleaded causes of action could succeed.

The plaintiffs appealed a case management master's order requiring them to post security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The earlier appeal had remitted the matter for reconsideration of the merits using the correct standard of whether the plaintiffs had a “good chance of success.” On rehearing, the master concluded the plaintiffs failed to establish a good chance of success and again ordered security for costs.

The Superior Court held the master correctly applied the proper legal test, carefully scrutinized the evidence and prior decisions, and exercised discretion appropriately.

No error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion was established.