RK v GSG

Following the Applicant’s unsuccessful application for the termination of case management of the Action, the Court was asked to determine costs. The Applicant conceded that they ought to pay costs, but disagreed with certain specifics of the Respondents’ positions on costs.

The underlying application was initially intended to proceed by way of oral hearing, but due to scheduling mishaps, the hearing did not proceed as planned and the parties agreed to provide the Court with written submissions instead. As such, no oral argument was heard. The Applicant was ultimately unsuccessful in their application, and the Respondents submitted proposed Bills of Costs, each of which sought costs pursuant to Item 8(1) of Schedule C, for an application requiring written briefs.

The Applicant took the position that costs pursuant to Item 8(1)(a) would not be appropriate in the present case as that item contemplates both a written brief being submitted and oral arguments taking place. As no oral argument occurred, the Applicant submitted that such costs ought not to be granted.

Justice Mah noted the inherently discretionary nature of costs awards and considered the factors outlined in Rule 10.33. The Court agreed with the Applicants that as no oral argument took place, it would be inappropriate to grant full costs under Item 8(1)(a), but that the Respondents were still entitled to some degree of costs recovery. Ultimately, it was held that each of the Respondents would be entitled to costs equal to 50% of the amount prescribed under Item 8(1)(a).