4 total
Offer including costs bars additional post‑offer costs.
The moving party sought summary judgment and additional costs after the responding party accepted a Rule 49 offer to settle for $50,000 stated to include all damages, costs, and interest to date.
The moving party argued that because the offer was silent on costs after the offer date, Rule 49.07(5)(b) entitled it to further costs incurred after the offer.
The court held that the wording of the offer explicitly included costs within the $50,000 amount and therefore disposed of the issue of costs.
As a result, no additional costs beyond the settlement sum were recoverable.
Costs of the motion were instead awarded to the responding party.
Costs of $20,000 awarded to successful applicant in condominium oppression case, reduced for excessive submissions.
Following a finding of oppression against the respondent condominium corporation and an award of $30,000 in general damages, the applicant sought costs ranging from $34,138.90 to $41,413.28.
The respondent argued for costs fixed at $10,000.
The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, noting the applicant's success but also criticizing the applicant's excessive damages claim, unreasonable settlement offer, and failure to adhere to page limits for costs submissions.
Costs were fixed at $20,000 all-inclusive.
Successful moving defendant awarded $7,500 in partial indemnity costs.
This was a costs endorsement following an earlier motion in which the defendant obtained alternative relief by way of a stay.
Both sides sought partial indemnity costs.
The court held the moving defendant was basically the successful party and that costs should follow the event.
Applying proportionality and the parties' reasonable expectations, the court fixed costs at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable within 60 days.
Summary hearing motion to dismiss human rights application for delay and no reasonable prospect of success denied.
The applicant, who has mobility issues, filed a human rights application alleging the respondent condominium corporation failed to accommodate his disability by refusing to alter a fence to improve his access to a nearby park.
The respondent requested the application be dismissed at a summary hearing, arguing it was filed outside the one-year limitation period and had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found the application was timely as the events constituted a series of incidents under section 34 of the Code.
The Tribunal also declined to dismiss the application for having no reasonable prospect of success, finding ambiguity regarding the respondent's understanding of the accommodation request.
