The appellant, LawPro, appealed a motion judge's order limiting its recovery of judgment enforcement costs to the steps explicitly listed in Rule 60.19(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act provides broad jurisdiction to award costs of enforcement, and is not restricted by Rule 60.19(1).
The court awarded LawPro its costs for a related fraudulent conveyances action, finding it was incidental to enforcing the judgment, but declined to award costs for responding to the respondents' consumer proposals.
The court fixed the enforcement costs at $30,000 for reasons of proportionality.
