The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court costs award of $1,650, arguing the deputy judge erred by exceeding the 15 percent limit under s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act without explicitly referencing the provision.
The Divisional Court held that leave to appeal was required because the costs award involved an exercise of discretion, and granted leave.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding that although the deputy judge did not cite s. 29, his factual findings regarding the appellant's unreasonable behaviour and failure to accept a generous settlement offer fully supported the elevated costs award.
