This decision addresses costs following an application where the applicant was granted a prescriptive easement, though in narrower terms than initially sought.
The applicant requested substantial indemnity costs of over $72,000, while the respondents sought partial indemnity costs of over $21,000, each claiming to be the successful party.
The court found the applicant's costs claim "breath-taking" and disproportionate to the modest value of the property and the limited scope of the argument.
Considering that the applicant sought an unlimited right-of-way but received an order reflecting only occasional use, and the respondents had not offered to formalize this occasional use, the court determined that neither party was entirely successful in their costs positions.
