In a supplementary costs endorsement, the court reviewed the respondents' late-filed Costs Outlines.
The respondents argued that their costs were substantially lower than the applicant's, pointing to differences in the number of counsel billing and hourly rates.
The court found the applicant's counsel's higher hourly rate to be within the reasonable market range and noted that the respondents' outline omitted time spent by another lawyer on the file.
The court concluded that the new information did not alter its prior finding that the applicant's costs were reasonable.
