This was an Application for the removal of a builder’s lien on the basis that the lien was registered out of time. The Application was argued entirely in writing, including through Affidavits and Briefs of Law. Cross-examination was also conducted on the Affidavits.

In dismissing the Application, the Court concluded that the lien had been registered prior to abandonment or completion of the work, and thus within the required time. On the question of Costs, the Court set out a tentative Judgment, subject to comment from the parties.

Noting that the Schedule C Tariff Schedule does not include a particular line item for “desk Applications” (an Application conducted entirely in writing), the Court awarded Costs on the same basis as a half-day oral Application requiring Briefs of Law. Similarly, the Court noted that Schedule C does not include any line item for Questioning other than pursuant to Part 5 of the Rules, which the cross-examination was not; however, applying the “analogy rule” at Rule 1.7(2), the Court ordered Costs on the same basis. Finally, the Court raised Rule 10.48(2) to hold that the successful Respondent should not be entitled to recovery of Costs relating to Goods and Services Tax, as those amounts would be refundable under the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1985, c E-15.