Leanne Kenning

Following dismissal of an appeal from a master's order, the court considered written submissions regarding costs.

The court applied s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing proportionality and the factors governing costs awards.

The court also relied on appellate guidance that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of full indemnity for actual expenses.

Finding that the successful defendant was entitled to costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs in a modest all‑inclusive amount.

The plaintiffs appealed a master's order dismissing their motion for answers to refusals arising from an examination for discovery.

The master held that because the action had been set down for trial, the plaintiffs required leave under rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a refusals motion, and no such leave had been sought.

The appeal court reviewed conflicting jurisprudence on whether leave is required for refusals motions after an action is set down for trial.

The court endorsed the line of authority requiring leave and found that the master properly exercised discretion in declining to hear the motion in the absence of a request for leave.

The appeal was dismissed, though the plaintiffs remained at liberty to seek leave to bring a refusals motion.