Robert D. Peck

The appellants abandoned an application for judicial review and the respondents were awarded costs fixed at $187,682.51 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed the costs order, arguing the costs should have been referred for assessment and that the amount was excessive.

The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge did not err in fixing the costs rather than referring them for assessment.

However, the Court found the costs awarded were excessive and not fair and reasonable, noting the amount was virtually the same as a substantial indemnity award and the proceedings relied on the same record as an earlier application.

The appeal was allowed and the costs award was reduced to $63,000.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action under Rule 21.01(1)(b).

The Court of Appeal found that the motions judge erred by considering extrinsic documents not referred to in the statement of claim and making findings of fact based on them.

The appeal was allowed in part, permitting the action to proceed to trial solely on the claim for damages based on the alleged abuse of statutory authority.