Canada Case Law

Rasner v. Berger

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the executor who sued on behalf of the estate is not a separate legal person and therefore not a non-party; established common law allows personal representatives who unsuccessfully sue to be personally liable for costs; the trial judge's award was a fact-specific exercise of discretion supported by findings (timing, distribution of assets, sole beneficiary) and raised no novel question of principle warranting appellate intervention.

Source excerpt

• Executor personal liability
• Non-party costs
• Leave to appeal
• Discretionary costs orders

Read case analysis

Ghahsareh v. Ehsani

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal a family-law costs order, finding no error in principle and no plainly wrong award, and ordered $7,500 costs of the appeal.

• Parenting time
• Decision-making
• Child support
• Spousal support
• Costs awards
• Leave to appeal costs

Read case analysis

March v. Marcheterre

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Costs reasons following a family trial: special costs refused, double costs ordered from April 18, 2024, and $12,500 in trust paid to the claimant.

• Divorce
• Enforceability of marriage agreement
• Unconscionability
• Forgery allegation
• Judicial reapportionment (s.65 fra)
• Special costs

Read case analysis

Waterway Houseboats Ltd. v. British Columbia

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed the Province’s request for a Sanderson order, holding that the McLaughlins had not caused the Province to be sued and that insolvency alone did not justify shifting costs.

• Sanderson order
• Bullock order
• Duty of care
• Negligence
• Third-party proceedings
• Insolvency impact on costs

Read case analysis

Bordignon v. Bordignon

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Post-trial, the court awarded the successful respondents ordinary lump sum costs, declined double costs under Rule 11-1, and ordered a costs certificate.

• Costs awards
• Offers to settle (rule 11-1)
• Double costs
• Lump sum costs
• Document disclosure
• Conspiracy claims in family proceedings

Read case analysis

Vigier v. Darren Hart Law Corporation (Hart Legal)

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Costs reasons after trial: the plaintiffs and Lisa Howden received costs, increased costs at 1.5 times Scale B, and double costs from rejected settlement offers.

• Negligent misrepresentation
• Fraudulent misrepresentation
• Defamation
• Offers to settle
• Increased costs/uplift
• Special costs

Read case analysis

Tench v. Sullivan

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed a DEER application to exclude disbursements from the 6% cap, finding the plaintiff had not shown undue hardship despite proving timing, risk, and necessity.

• Disbursements cap
• Deer s.5 applications
• Undue hardship
• Proportionality
• Expert evidence limits
• Costs allocation

Read case analysis

Thiessen v. Kepfer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Costs ruling in a motor vehicle injury case: special costs and uplift costs were refused, but double costs were awarded from May 17, 2023 onward under SCCR 9-1.

• Offers to settle
• Special costs
• Uplift costs (appendix b s.2(5))
• Double costs under sccr 9-1
• Pre-judgment interest
• Post-judgment interest

Read case analysis

Brave Construction Ltd. v. Ianovici

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ordered Brave Construction Ltd. to indemnify Roman Portnoy for 50% of his costs in a derivative action, but refused double costs and summary approval of costs.

• Derivative action
• Indemnity under bcbca s.233(4)(b)(i)
• Double costs under rule 9-1(5)
• Offer to settle
• Bill of costs
• Regulator/registrar assessment

Read case analysis

PreveCeutical Medical Inc. v. Lotz

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court ordered the corporate plaintiffs to post $20,000 in security for costs, but refused security against the individual plaintiff, finding no egregious circumstances.

• Security for costs
• Duty of care to non-clients
• Impecuniosity
• Access to justice
• Causation
• Leave to increase security

Read case analysis