The moving party sought substantial indemnity costs after succeeding on a motion, arguing the opposing party had been warned that their statutory rescission claim lacked merit.
The responding party argued substantial indemnity was inappropriate because the issues concerning the statutory rescission remedy under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 were novel and of public importance, and because leave to amend pleadings had been granted.
The court held that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for rare and exceptional cases involving reprehensible litigation conduct and found the responding party’s conduct did not meet that threshold.
Given the novelty and public importance of the issues, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.
Costs of $12,000 were ordered payable by the responding parties.
