Following trial, the plaintiffs recovered $18,645 against a home inspector for failing to report a sloping kitchen floor but were unsuccessful on their principal claim alleging differential settlement of the residence.
The plaintiffs sought full indemnity costs exceeding $139,000, while the defendant argued that costs should be denied or awarded in its favour because the recovery fell within the Small Claims Court jurisdiction and because the plaintiffs failed on the major issue at trial.
The court held that it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to have pursued the action under the ordinary procedure and declined to deny costs under Rules 57.05(1) or 76.13.
However, given the plaintiffs’ lack of success on the central issue and proportionality considerations, their costs were substantially reduced.
Expert disbursements were disallowed and a global costs award was fixed with a set‑off for the defendant’s mid‑trial motion costs.
