Following resolution of a motion by consent permitting the applicant to file a fresh notice of application in litigation arising from termination of employment by a municipal employer, the court addressed competing claims for costs.
The applicant sought $5,000 in costs while the respondent sought $10,000.
The court noted that success on the motion was divided and that the proposed fresh notice of application had originally sought relief well beyond the narrow issue capable of adjudication under the Municipal Act.
Considering the discretionary nature of costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 57.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concluded that fairness favoured making no costs order.
