The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory costs order that denied them costs despite being successful on a motion for an interlocutory injunction.
The motions judge had denied costs on the basis that counsel intentionally underestimated the length of the motion to get on the list.
The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the decision as it extended previous case law by denying costs to successful parties who had not misled the judge hearing the motion.
The court also found that the appropriate use of cost sanctions for time misestimates is an issue of public importance.
