Zaid Sayeed

The applicant sought an urgent interim injunction to prevent the respondent from evicting her from a commercial rental unit after the original hearing date was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At a case conference, the parties agreed to a timetable to prepare the application for adjudication.

On consent, the respondent agreed not to take any steps to evict the applicant while she complied with the timetable, rendering the motion for interim relief unnecessary.

The applicant sought an urgent determination for a motion to obtain interim relief, specifically a mandatory order staying the expiry of a development permit or a declaratory order extending its expiry, due to the suspension of regular court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The permit was set to expire on April 13, 2020, and its expiry would negate years of effort and expense.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter urgent to the extent of the request for interim relief, allowing it to proceed before the resumption of normal court operations and providing specific directions for the hearing.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the applicants' appeal under the Building Code Act.

The respondent, Morrisburg Dock Expansion Inc., sought substantial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued for a significantly lower amount, claiming public interest litigant status and citing issues with their former counsel's conduct.

The court found the applicants did not meet the high threshold for public interest litigants and that their conduct, through counsel, had unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

Considering the principles of indemnity, settlement encouragement, and sanctioning inappropriate behavior, the court awarded the respondent $121,692.23 in costs, payable within three months, acknowledging the amount was significant but justified by the respondent's success and the applicants' conduct.

Following a settlement and court-supervised election of a temple's board of directors, the newly elected board sought the court's assistance to compel the former board to turn over management.

The applicants sought costs of $1,192.50 for the case conference, while the respondents argued for $850.

The court split the difference, awarding $1,021.25 to the applicants, payable by the individual respondents.

The court also approved the unopposed fees of the court-appointed Nominations Officer and Meeting Chair.