Darryl C. Patterson

The court determined the appropriate costs award following objections raised by the respondents to a letter of request issued from the State of California seeking evidence.

The respondents raised legitimate concerns regarding the breadth and time frame of the evidence sought, prompting the applicant to significantly narrow the request and limit the potential use of the evidence.

In deciding costs, the court considered the conduct of the parties and comparable authority involving similar requests for evidence in aid of foreign proceedings.

Although both sides advanced cost submissions on a partial indemnity scale, the court awarded a reduced lump-sum costs amount to the applicant.

Following motions under the Partition Act concerning the sale of a jointly owned commercial property, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs significantly exceeding the guideline hourly rates published by the Costs Subcommittee of the Civil Rules Committee.

The court held that the guideline rates are not mandatory and may be exceeded where justified by factors such as inflation, the substantial monetary value of the dispute, the sophistication of the parties, and the retention of Toronto counsel.

Adjusted hourly rates above the guideline maximum were approved, but the overall costs claimed were reduced due to divided success on the motions.

The court ordered the respondent to pay partial indemnity costs of $20,000 plus disbursements.