3 total
Costs awarded to respondents after applicants' public interest litigant argument rejected for pursuing personal pecuniary interests.
The respondents brought a motion to strike the applicants' application.
The court did not strike the application but granted the applicants leave to convert it to an action.
The parties subsequently made written submissions on the costs of the motion.
The applicants argued they should not be subject to costs as they were public interest litigants.
The court rejected this argument, finding the applicants were pursuing a personal pecuniary interest related to their commercial property.
The court awarded costs to the respondents, fixing the amounts at $15,000 plus disbursements for the federal respondents, and $2,500 each for the two municipal respondents.
The court awarded costs to the respondents after rejecting the applicants' late claim to be public interest litigants.
This costs endorsement followed a motion where the applicants' initial application was converted to an action, which they subsequently did not pursue.
The respondents sought costs for the motion.
The court determined that the applicants were not public interest litigants, as their claims were personal and pecuniary.
Consequently, the applicants were ordered to pay partial costs to the various respondents, reflecting the respondents' ultimate success in concluding the litigation, albeit not on the exact grounds initially pleaded.
Breach of settlement application dismissed; requested materials were not covered by the settlement agreement.
The applicant filed a breach of settlement application alleging the respondent failed to provide budget committee materials free of charge, as allegedly required by their previous settlement regarding accommodation for his visual disability.
The Tribunal found that the budget committee was not among the committees specifically listed in the Minutes of Settlement.
Furthermore, the Tribunal interpreted the settlement's reference to changing 'requirements for accommodation' as applying to the applicant's disability-related needs (such as font size), not to a desire for additional free materials.
The application was dismissed.
