Jordan Goldbatt

The moving defendants sought costs of a motion following reasons previously released awarding them costs of a discontinued action but not addressing the motion itself.

The responding plaintiff argued that the absence of a costs provision meant no costs were payable and that the court was functus officio.

The court rejected both arguments, holding that because no formal order had yet been issued and entered, the court retained jurisdiction to address costs.

Applying the principles of proportionality under Rule 1.04(1.1) and the cost factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court reduced the claimed amount and fixed enhanced costs at $8,000 payable by the plaintiff.

The moving defendants sought costs after the plaintiff discontinued a defamation action arising from online criticism of a municipal mayor during an election campaign.

The court considered whether the action constituted Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP).

Based on the timing of the action, the absence of a demand letter, the use of a notice of action without a statement of claim, and the plaintiff’s failure to provide evidence explaining the litigation, the court inferred that the proceeding was intended to silence political critics.

Exercising discretion under Rule 23.05(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the defendants were successful parties following discontinuance and were entitled to costs.

Enhanced costs were awarded due to the SLAPP nature of the litigation.