4 total
Unnecessary motion results in partial indemnity costs fixed for successful parties.
A costs endorsement following a motion in construction-related litigation involving multiple parties.
The court held that two parties were entitled to independent representation on the motion but found the motion unnecessary because the governing law was clear.
Although the responding parties had a right to bring the dispute before the court, the court emphasized that unsuccessful litigants cannot expect to avoid meaningful cost consequences.
Substantial indemnity costs were declined, and proportionality concerns were considered due to the relatively small claims involved.
Costs were fixed at $5,903.60 for each successful party, payable by the opposing parties in equal shares.
Court enforced accepted offer to settle and granted judgment under Rule 49.09.
The defendants moved for judgment under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure based on the plaintiffs’ accepted offer to settle.
The plaintiffs had made a written offer prior to trial that remained open until one minute after the commencement of trial, and the defendants accepted the offer months later after the trial had been adjourned.
The responding parties argued the court should exercise its discretion not to enforce the settlement because significant additional litigation expenses had been incurred after the adjournment.
The court held that discretion to refuse judgment on an accepted offer should be exercised only in rare circumstances and that the facts did not justify departing from the policy favouring enforcement of settlements.
Judgment was therefore granted in accordance with the accepted offer.
Successful appellant awarded $15,000 in appeal costs, payable after the ordered new trial.
The appellant was successful on appeal, which resulted in an order for a new trial due to the trial judge's inadequate reasons.
The appellant sought costs for both the appeal and the first trial.
The Divisional Court awarded the appellant $15,000 in costs for the appeal, noting the issues were not complex.
However, because the need for a new trial was not the respondents' fault, the court ordered that the appeal costs not be payable until the completion of the second trial, and that the costs of the first trial be in the cause.
Appeal allowed and new trial ordered due to trial judge's failure to provide adequate reasons.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of her libel action against the respondents regarding an allegedly defamatory article published in a newspaper.
The trial judge had dismissed the action, finding the statements were substantially true and constituted fair comment, largely based on an adverse credibility finding against the appellant.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, holding that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for his credibility findings and failed to analyze conflicting or corroborating evidence, rendering the reasons insufficient for proper appellate review.
