J. Hopkins

The plaintiff was successful on a motion to extend the time to bring her claim under the Succession Law Reform Act and sought costs of $4,050.21.

The defendant opposed, arguing the plaintiff's delay necessitated the motion.

The court declined to award costs, finding that the plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune by failing to act within the statutory limitation period, making it unfair to hold the defendant responsible for the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff widow brought a motion for leave to extend the time to bring a dependant's relief claim against her late husband's estate under s. 61(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act, and to transfer the action.

The estate opposed the extension, citing an unexplained delay.

The court granted the motion, finding that despite the lack of explanation for the delay, there was no non-compensable prejudice to the estate, as the main asset (the matrimonial home) remained undistributed and was subject to an ongoing partition and sale application.

After the dismissal of an employee’s wrongful dismissal action seeking unpaid salary and bonus compensation, the defendant sought elevated costs relying on a rejected pre-trial settlement offer.

The court considered Rules 49.13 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the appellate guidance restricting elevated costs awards against unsuccessful plaintiffs absent reprehensible conduct.

The court held that although the defendant had made a settlement offer, the plaintiff’s claim was not frivolous and the litigation had been conducted efficiently.

As there was no egregious conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, the court declined to award elevated costs.

Costs were fixed at $35,000 payable by the plaintiff.