The Plaintiff applied for solicitor-client Costs or enhanced Costs, and full disbursements following her success at Trial.

The Plaintiff claimed, among other things, that she was entitled to double Costs from the date of a Formal Offer issued pursuant to Rule 4.29. The Court, however, found there was no compromise in the Formal Offer and therefore it did not fall under Rule 4.29 and double Costs were not appropriate.

The Court considered the Costs in light of the factors in Rule 10.33 and found that solicitor-client Costs were not warranted, but instead awarded Costs on a party-and-party basis and applied an inflation adjustment factor to account for Schedule C being out of date.

Regarding the disbursements, the Defendant objected to several of the Plaintiff’s expert fees and pointed to Rule 8.16(1) which states that “unless the Court otherwise permits, no more than one expert is permitted to give opinion evidence on any one subject on behalf of a party.” The Court agreed with the Defendant and disallowed several expert fees that it considered to be duplicative.

The Court directed all remaining issues regarding fees and disbursements to the Assessment Officer pursuant to Rule 10.34.