Canada Case Law

Johnson v. Canadian Tennis Association Et Al.

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The assessment officer must implement the Court's judgment by allowing costs only within the single set awarded; the officer cannot impose sanctions or consider appellant impecuniosity post-judgment; items 22(a) and 26 were allowed in full, Items 18 and 19 were limited to one unit and six units respectively across the files, Item 21(a) was disallowed, and specific travel, accommodation and meal disbursements were adjusted to reflect reasonableness under Tariff B and NJC guidance, resulting in a total award of $4,312.72.

Source excerpt

• Assessment of costs
• Tariff b interpretation
• Jurisdiction of assessment officer
• Reasonableness of disbursements
• Impecuniosity

Read case analysis

Eng v. Sit

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The trial judge permissibly accepted counsel's abandonment of penalty and costs claims, and correctly interpreted the loan agreement as providing for simple, not compound, interest based on the contract language, the surrounding circumstances (including that the plaintiff drafted the agreement), and analogous authorities; issues of promissory estoppel and collateral agreement were not pleaded or developed at trial and thus were not appropriately raised on cross-appeal.

Source excerpt

• Loan agreement interpretation
• Simple versus compound interest
• Penalty clause
• Guarantee of debt
• Promissory estoppel
• Collateral agreement

Read case analysis

Morton v. Cherkaoui

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The respondent is entitled to ordinary costs of the appeal payable by the appellant under s.44 of the Court of Appeal Act; the appellant's inaccurate factual assertions and corrected A.I. errors did not constitute reprehensible conduct on the appeal sufficient to warrant special costs, and trial conduct alone without lower‑court findings is insufficient to justify special costs on appeal.

Source excerpt

• Derivative action
• Leave to commence derivative action
• Costs of appeal
• Special costs
• Misconduct in litigation
• Use of ai in legal submissions

Read case analysis

Valley's Edge Park Ltd. v. Holden

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Clause 5.13 of the Statutory Building Scheme does not clearly and unequivocally entitle the administrator to solicitor-client or full indemnity costs in the circumstances of this case because the clause, properly interpreted, contemplates costs tied to physical work to cure a breach and payment is triggered by delivery of an invoice; accordingly full indemnity costs are refused and the petitioner is awarded party-and-party costs on Scale B.

Source excerpt

• Statutory building scheme
• Contractual indemnity for legal fees
• Solicitor-client vs party-and-party costs
• Injunction
• Equitable damages
• Contract interpretation

Read case analysis

Genesis Mortgage Investment Corp. v. Blais

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted and a stay ordered because the issue of whether a lender awarded indemnity costs in foreclosure can be compelled to disclose privileged legal invoices and submit to an assessment before redemption is novel and important, the appeal has arguable merit, Genesis would suffer irreparable harm from an immediate waiver of solicitor‑client privilege, and the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the respondents' protections and concessions.

Source excerpt

• Indemnity costs
• Assessment of costs
• Right of redemption
• Stay of execution
• Waiver of privilege

Read case analysis

Li v. The Owners, Strata Plan BCS 2884

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The application for increased costs was dismissed because assessing costs under the ordinary tariff would not create an unjust result: the appellants' challenge had arguable merit, there were no adverse findings about their conduct or strategy, the abandonment of one ground was properly explained, and the disparity between actual fees and tariff recovery alone did not justify increased costs; Scale B assessment is appropriate.

Source excerpt

• Special levy
• Increased costs
• Assessment of costs
• Rule 70 court of appeal rules
• Statutory petitions under strata property act

Read case analysis

Leduc v. Dufour

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal for Ontario fixed appeal costs at $37,000 after dismissing the appeal, ordering the appellant to pay the respondents on an all-inclusive basis.

• Costs of appeal
• Quantum of costs
• Litigation guardianship
• Estate litigation
• Costs-of-appeal
• Quantum-of-costs

Read case analysis

O’Neil v. O’Neil

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Because the defendants succeeded on a determinative summary judgment motion, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 77.08 to award lump sum costs as a substantial contribution to reasonable legal expenses, finding the motion was not complex and noting duplication of work between counsel; awards of $7,500 inclusive to each pair of defendants were appropriate and proportionate.

Source excerpt

• Summary judgment
• Statute of limitations
• Costs awards
• Tariff c
• Lump sum costs

Read case analysis

Morton v. Cherkaoui

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The chambers judge did not err: on the record he acted within his discretion in refusing further adjournment, properly dismissed the conflict application, and correctly applied s.233(1) BCA—finding the applicant acted in good faith and that the proposed derivative proceeding is in the company's best interests because there is an arguable case with a reasonable prospect of success; therefore leave was correctly granted and the costs order was properly made.

Source excerpt

• Derivative action
• Leave to commence derivative proceeding
• Good faith test
• Best interests of the company
• Adjournment discretion
• Counsel disqualification

Read case analysis

Moradi v. Whole Foods Market

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Security for costs in the amount of $7,500 was ordered because the appeal was assessed as having little prospect of success and security was in the interests of justice; the appeal is stayed until security is posted; respondent granted an extension to file its factum until 30 days after posting; appellant's request for a stay of the lower court costs order was dismissed as unnecessary given respondent's undertaking not to enforce.

Source excerpt

• Security for costs
• Stay of proceedings
• Extension of time to file factum
• Judicial review
• Procedural fairness
• Reconsideration

Read case analysis