This was a Costs Decision following a Trial. In the Trial Decision, the Court dismissed the claim of a President and CEO (the “Employee”) that he had been wrongfully dismissed from his employment with his employer (the “Employer”). With regards to the Counterclaim, the Court determined that the Employee had violated several duties owed to the Employer and awarded damages and Costs to the Employer. However, the parties were not able to agree on the quantum of the Costs Award. The Employer argued for full indemnity Costs, while the Employee argued that the Employer should only receive party-party Costs.

The Court considered Rule 10.29 and the factors outlined in Rule 10.33, which included the outcome of the case, its complexity, and the behavior of the parties involved, in order to determine the appropriate Costs. Exercising its discretion, the Court concluded that this case met the criteria for full indemnity Costs, given the exceptional and uncommon circumstances surrounding the Employee's actions both before and during the litigation process. These actions included a lack of honesty, making misrepresentations, and misusing company funds. The Employee argued that the Employer was attempting to use Costs as a means to harm him or as a form of oppression. However, Justice Yamauchi stated that "Impecuniosity... is not a valid reason to deny costs."