Following the dismissal of two appeals heard together, the successful respondents sought costs.
One respondent sought substantial indemnity costs based on a Rule 49 offer to settle, while the other sought partial indemnity costs.
The appellant argued that no costs should be awarded because the appeal raised a novel issue of law regarding the interpretation of the Construction Lien Act.
The Divisional Court rejected the appellant's argument, finding the issue was not novel and the appellant's interpretation would have rendered section 20(2) of the Act meaningless.
The court awarded costs of $7,500 to each of the successful respondents.