2 total
Motion for costs dismissed; Tribunal's costs jurisdiction does not extend to conduct during municipal planning process.
The applicant successfully appealed the Town's refusal of a zoning by-law amendment to permit a bed and breakfast.
Following the appeal, the applicant brought a motion for costs of $18,978.09, alleging the Town's conduct during the municipal planning process was unreasonable and designed to obstruct the application.
The Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that its jurisdiction to award costs under Rule 23 is limited to conduct occurring during the Tribunal proceeding itself, not the preceding municipal planning process.
The successful municipality was awarded $365,000 in partial indemnity costs, apportioned among the unsuccessful parties.
This costs endorsement followed a trial where claims of negligence against a regional municipality were dismissed, along with related Family Law Act claims and a cross-claim.
The successful municipality sought partial indemnity costs.
The court considered factors under Rule 57.01, including the complexity, importance, and length of the 23-day trial, as well as the conduct of counsel and the financial circumstances of the unsuccessful plaintiffs.
The court found the municipality's requested costs somewhat high and the opposing parties' proposals somewhat low.
A total partial indemnity costs award of $365,000.00 (inclusive of fees and disbursements) was made in favor of the municipality, apportioned 65% to the plaintiffs and 35% to the co-defendant, whose interests were largely aligned with the plaintiffs due to a Mary Carter agreement.
