Following a prior motion and cross‑motion concerning discovery sequencing, leave to conduct discoveries, and a site inspection under the Construction Lien Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court addressed the issue of costs.
The plaintiff argued it was entirely successful and sought substantial indemnity costs based on alleged obstructive conduct by the defendant.
The defendant asserted its cross‑motion was successful and that the plaintiff’s conduct necessitated the motion.
The court accepted the plaintiff’s position that the defendant’s submissions attempted to re‑litigate issues already determined.
Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis.
