4.16: Dispute resolution processes
4.29: Costs consequences of formal offer to settle
7.3: Summary Judgment (Application and decision)
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
10.31: Court-ordered costs award
10.33: Court considerations in making costs award

Case Summary

The Plaintiff brought a series of Applications including Applications for Summary Judgment, Double Costs, and dismissing the requirement for Judicial Dispute Resolution. The Defendants cross-applied to have the Plaintiff’s claim summarily dismissed and for Costs under column 5 of Schedule C of the Rules. Jones J. dismissed the Plaintiff’s Actions against the Defendant, Sutherland, in their entirety and as against the remaining two Defendants in their entirety except for an Action that may be founded on breach of covenant. All of the Plaintiff’s Applications were denied.

Jones J. denied the Plaintiff’s request for Costs because he was entirely unsuccessful in his Application for Summary Judgment, and because Rules 10.29 and 10.31 provide the Court with discretion in awarding a Costs award and in considering the factors outlined in Rule 10.33. Further, Jones J. considered the factors outlined under Rule 10.33(2) and found that the Plaintiff improperly sought:

(a)    To set a Trial date prior to disclosure of information between parties;

(b)   Case management after the date had been set for his Special Chambers Application relating to his Summary Judgment Application; and

(c)    To compel the Defendants to complete a Request for Disclosure which the Plaintiff prepared in a manner not in compliance with the Rules.

Jones J. stated that there was no basis for awarding the Plaintiff any Costs, and granted the Defendants’ request for Costs pursuant to Column 5 of Schedule C of the Rules.

View CanLII Details