The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs following their successful motion for an interlocutory injunction.
The defendant, Mr. Cabezas, argued that costs should be reserved for the trial judge or significantly reduced.
The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, ordered costs in the cause.
The decision emphasized that it is generally preferable to reserve costs for interlocutory injunctions to the trial judge, given the absence of a final determination of rights and the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages.
Conflicting positions on factual complexity and proportionality also made it difficult to fix costs at this stage.
