1.2: Purpose and intention of these rules
10.28: Definition of “party”
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
10.30: When costs award may be made
10.31: Court-ordered costs award
10.33: Court considerations in making costs award

Case Summary

After an unsuccessful Application to be added as a party to an ongoing Action and ultimately receive assets from a trust, the Applicant, Mr. Maurice had solicitor client Costs awarded against him. At a subsequent Application, the Applicant was declared a vexatious litigant and the Applicant’s lawyer, Ms. Kennedy, also had Costs awarded against her personally. The Court directed that the Parties provide written submissions on the scope of the Costs awarded in two of the Applications.

Justice Thomas referred to Rule 1.2, noting the ability of the Court of enforce the Rules through remedies and sanctions. Thomas J. considered Rule 10.30, and held that the Court “retains the jurisdiction to provide the parties with direction in respect of the costs” for the previous proceedings. Rule 10.33 sets out a number of considerations that the Court may consider when making a discretionary Costs award, including considering whether a party has engaged in misconduct.

Thomas J. held that the considerations for making Costs awards pursuant to Rule 10.31 “dovetail” with Rule 1.2(4). In discussing the ability of the Court to award Costs to the Respondents, who were ordered by the Court to file a brief in response to the Applicant’s Application thereby incurring additional costs, Justice Thomas referred to Rule 10.28, which states that the recoverable Costs of litigation extend to any person “filing or participating” in a proceeding. As such, the Respondents were entitled to a Costs award.

Justice Thomas ordered party and party Costs against Ms. Kennedy for the initial unsuccessful Application, and ordered solicitor and client Costs against both Ms. Kennedy and Mr. Maurice for the subsequent hearing where the Applicant was declared a vexatious litigant.

View CanLII Details