Following dismissal of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment seeking to strike a motor vehicle accident claim as statute-barred, the plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The motion had raised a novel issue concerning the interaction between discoverability and the plaintiffs’ admitted knowledge of the two‑year limitation period prior to its expiry.
The court held that the defendants were justified in bringing the motion given the claim’s lengthy procedural history and the legal uncertainty surrounding the limitation issue.
While the plaintiffs were entitled to costs as the successful party, the court found the hours claimed excessive and rejected substantial indemnity.
Costs were fixed at a reduced amount that was fair and reasonable to the unsuccessful party.
