The court determined costs arising from three related procedural motions in a partnership dispute among lawyers.
One motion compelled the departing partner to attend cross‑examination on an affidavit filed in a pending summary judgment motion; another sought a further and better affidavit of documents; and a third sought removal of a lawyer as solicitor of record.
The court addressed whether a represented lawyer‑litigant could recover costs for personal legal work performed on the file.
Applying authority including Fong v. Chan, the court held that a represented litigant who is a lawyer cannot recover personal time at counsel rates without proof of opportunity cost.
The court further emphasized the principle of reasonableness in costs and reduced the amounts claimed, awarding limited costs on the first two motions and none on the solicitor‑removal motion.
