Following an application challenging the legality of a municipal by-law authorizing an agreement with a conservation organization to use an unopened road allowance for a public trail, the court had previously found the by-law illegal for failure to comply with municipal notice requirements but declined to quash it, dismissing the application.
The parties subsequently made written submissions on costs.
The applicants argued they achieved primary success because the by-law was declared illegal, while the municipality and the added party sought costs or alternatively no costs due to divided success.
The court held that success on the application was clearly divided because the by-law was found illegal yet remained in force.
Exercising its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court ordered that each party bear its own costs.
