The appellant law firm appealed a Master's decision that varied an earlier costs order and awarded $1,000 in costs to the self-represented respondent upon the discontinuance of a fee recovery action.
The respondent also appealed, challenging the discontinuance and seeking higher costs.
The Divisional Court allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the variation of the costs order, finding the Master was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to vary costs orders previously made by superior court judges.
The appeals regarding the $1,000 costs award were dismissed, as the Master reasonably approximated the respondent's disbursements and correctly applied the law regarding self-represented litigants' entitlement to costs for foregone income.
