Following earlier reasons amending an order under the slip rule, the court addressed competing claims for costs.
The applicants sought partial indemnity costs after succeeding on the motion to correct the order, while the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs and personal costs against opposing counsel under Rule 57.01 and Rule 57.07.
The court declined to revisit the merits of the slip issue despite further submissions from the respondent.
Applying the principles governing personal costs against counsel, the court found the case did not meet the high threshold for such relief and that the respondent had largely been unsuccessful.
Given that the applicants’ counsel created the error necessitating the motion and contributed to unnecessary conflict, the court also declined to award costs in the applicants’ favour.
