Citation

CITATION: West Carleton Community Alliance v. The City of Ottawa et al, 2026 ONSC 2094

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-26-00000007-0000

DATE: 20260414

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: WEST CARLETON COMMUNITY ALLIANCE Applicant

AND:

THE CITY OF OTTAWA, EVOLUGEN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE POWER INC., AND STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Respondents

BEFORE: L. Brownstone J.

COUNSEL: Raymond Colautti, for the Applicant(s) Stuart Huxley, for the Respondent City of Ottawa Kirsten Crain, Emma Blanchard, and Bhreagh Ross, for the Respondents Evolugen Limited Partnership and Brookfield Renewable Power Inc. Michael Finley for the Respondent Stantec Consulting Ltd.

COSTS ENDORSEMENT

Introduction

[1] On March 11, 2026, I released my decisions on two motions. The first was a motion by the applicant that sought a stay of the implementation of a zoning bylaw amendment pending the hearing of the application. The second was a motion by the respondents Evolugen and Brookfield, referred to as the proponent, to strike portions of the application and portions of the applicant’s record. I dismissed the motion for a stay and granted significant portions of the motion to strike.

[2] The parties have been unable to agree on costs of the motions. I have received and reviewed their submissions and this is my decision and reasons on costs.

[1] Fixing costs is a discretionary exercise under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C. 43. Rule 57 outlines, in a non-comprehensive list, factors that guide the exercise of this discretion. Relevant factors include the results of the proceeding, the principle of indemnity, the amount an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay, the complexity of the proceeding and the importance of the issues.

[2] Ultimately, I must fix an amount of costs that is proportionate, and that is fair and reasonable for the unsuccessful parties to pay: Boucher v. Public Accountants Council for the Province of Ontario, 2004 14579 (ONCA) at para. 26. A costs award should “reflect what is reasonably predictable and warranted for the type of activity undertaken in the circumstances of the case, rather than the amount of time that a party’s lawyer is willing or permitted to expend”: Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly Canada Inc., 2022 ONCA 587 at para. 65.

[3] The proponent seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $75,000 on the stay motion and $10,000 on the motion to strike. It says this represents less than half of its costs on a partial indemnity scale, as can be seen from the costs outline it filed.

[4] The City of Ottawa seeks costs on a partial indemnity basis in the range of $20,000 to $23,407.

[5] The applicant states that the costs sought by the proponent are excessive. There were four lawyers on the file who charge rates higher than does the applicant’s counsel, who is more senior. Further, this is public interest litigation so the court should not award any costs against the applicant.

[6] In my view, there are both public and private interest elements to this application. The four members of the applicant have a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation; they are neighbours to the planned facility and claim to be directly affected by it. At the same time, the applicant raises some concerns that can be seen to transcend the four members’ own direct interest.

[7] However, as noted by Lauwers J. (as he then was) in Durham Citizens Lobby for Environmental Awareness & Responsibility Inc. v. Durham (Regional Municipality), 2011 ONSC 7143, 92 M.P.L.R. (4th) 242, at para. 71, the public interest aspect of the case does not automatically exempt a litigant from costs rules. (Nor did it relieve the applicant from its obligation to comply with my direction that costs submissions be limited to three double-spaced pages – it filed ten).

[8] The issues in this application were not of great complexity but the proceeding carried significance for all parties. The economic costs to the proponent had it lost the stay motion would have been tens of millions of dollars and, it submits, may have jeopardized its ability to comply with its contractual obligations. The proponent therefore cannot be faulted for the seriousness with which it tackled the application. Similarly, the city had an important interest to protect in advancing its position that steps taken by democratically elected bodies should not be lightly subject to stays of proceeding. The motion was also admittedly important to the applicant.

[9] The applicant’s motion record was voluminous (over 3000 pages), the record of proceedings was over 8000 pages, and the responding record was over 2000 pages. There were cross-examinations on the materials. Given the size of the record and the importance of the issues, the applicant ought reasonably to have expected the litigation to be costly and potential costs awards against it to be high. Additionally, costs would be expected to be higher when the matter had to proceed on a truncated timetable.

[10] I do not accept the applicant’s submission that the respondents can more easily bear the costs of litigation than can the applicant, particularly with respect to the city. I firmly reject the submission that the city, a publicly funded litigant, has “inexhaustible resources of time and money”.

[11] Weighing the above factors, including the public interest component of the litigation, I find a fair, reasonable, and proportionate amount for the applicant to pay is $35,000 in total for both motions to the proponent and $12,500 to the city.

L. Brownstone J.

Released: April 14, 2026