Denis J. Power

Addendum to reasons for decision correcting the allocation of sentence between offences in a criminal matter.

The court confirmed that the amended warrant of committal properly reflected the distribution of the total sentence across the offences.

The total custodial sentence remained seven years after applying four years of pre‑sentence custody credit.

The addendum clarified that the amended warrant accurately corresponds with the earlier reasons for decision.

The court determined costs following the dismissal of a summary judgment motion brought under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff, as the successful party on the motion, sought full recovery of legal fees exceeding $9,000.

The moving defendants argued that no costs should be awarded or that costs should be in the cause, emphasizing that the motion was reasonably brought and that a key appellate authority relied upon by the court was released after the motion was argued.

The court found no evidence of unreasonable conduct or bad faith to justify substantial indemnity costs and instead awarded partial indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $5,500 payable forthwith.

Following earlier reasons terminating spousal support retroactively, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicant, as the successful party, sought substantial costs relying on two settlement offers that were more favourable than the ultimate result and alleging unreasonable litigation conduct by the respondent.

The respondent argued that costs should be significantly reduced due to financial hardship and the alleged simplicity of the matter.

The court found that the respondent’s conduct unnecessarily increased litigation costs but expressed concern that the amount claimed was excessive for what was essentially a straightforward proceeding.

Costs were fixed globally at $25,000 payable by the respondent within 60 days.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a Small Claims Court decision, both parties sought costs.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, arguing the appeal was frivolous and noting the appellant's scandalous allegations against the court.

The court awarded costs to the respondent on a partial indemnity scale, fixing the amount at $3,500, taking into account the $7,200 claimed in the original action.

The court also reprimanded the self-represented appellant, who is a lawyer by training, for her disrespectful and unfounded attacks on the judiciary.

The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his action for wrongful dismissal and overtime pay, as well as the subsequent costs award.

The Divisional Court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant was a probationary employee who could be terminated without notice under the employment contract.

The court also considered whether leave was required to appeal the costs award under the Courts of Justice Act.

Although leave was required, the court granted it but ultimately dismissed the costs appeal, finding the trial judge's award was within the statutory limit and properly exercised.

Following a successful judicial review application, the applicants sought costs of $113,017.43 on a partial indemnity scale.

The court reviewed the bill of costs and applied the principle that a costs award must reflect a fair and reasonable amount for the unsuccessful party to pay, rather than an exact measure of actual costs.

The court disallowed costs for proceedings before the administrative tribunal, reduced the hourly rates claimed for counsel, and found the hours claimed for preparation and submissions excessive.

Costs were fixed at $25,681.93 inclusive of disbursements.