This decision determined the costs of a successful application concerning a right to construct and use a dock at the end of a right-of-way over the respondents' property.
The court rejected the respondents' submission that the applicants were the authors of their own misfortune and found the dispute, while not document-heavy, was uniquely complex and factually intricate.
Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the presumptive consequences under Rule 49.10(1), the court held that the applicants' offers to settle were genuine compromise offers and were as favourable as or more favourable than the ultimate remedy obtained.
The court declined to enhance costs based on alleged delay or litigation conduct by respondents' counsel, but awarded substantial costs in a reduced amount.
