George Argiris

Following the dismissal of the moving parties' motions, the responding parties sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the moving parties' conduct, which included bringing unmeritorious motions, causing delays, and sending abusive and defamatory letters to the responding parties and their counsel, warranted sanction.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs fixed at $35,000 plus GST and disbursements, applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable.

The applicants brought a motion before a panel of the Divisional Court to set aside the decisions of a single judge, who had refused to set aside earlier orders dismissing their motions for leave to appeal due to their counsel's failure to attend.

The applicants argued that their counsel had a scheduling conflict and received insufficient notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the single judge applied the correct test under Rule 37.14 and properly concluded that counsel's failure to attend was a choice rather than the result of accident, mistake, or insufficient notice.

The court also upheld the single judge's costs awards.