Canada Case Law

Mahilum v. Consentino

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court exercised its discretion and denied the extension of time because the moving parties offered an unsatisfactory explanation for the delay, the proposed grounds of appeal were exceedingly weak (no proper articulation of error of fact or law and the adjournment decision was reasonable), and the applicants' history of tactical delay and the risk they could not satisfy costs made granting the extension not in the interests of justice.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time to file appeal
• Service and filing requirements
• Adjournment discretion
• Security for costs
• Costs awards
• Party conduct

Read case analysis

Illingworth v. MacIntyre

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Award costs to Respondent MacIntyre in a lump sum of $6,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements because tariffs were inappropriate given mixed outcomes and the character of the proceedings; the need for litigation was substantially driven by Petitioner's rigid conduct and refusal to accept legal principles; the amount reflects the governing rules and precedents and justice between the parties.

Source excerpt

• Costs assessment
• Tariff vs lump sum
• Child support variation
• Party conduct
• Settlement offers

Read case analysis

Crocs Canada, Inc. v. Double Diamond Distribution Ltd

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court awarded Crocs lump sum costs of $232,861.15, finding Tariff B inadequate and reducing certain overhead disbursements.

• Costs award
• Lump sum costs
• Disbursements
• Expert fees
• Party conduct
• Costs-award

Read case analysis

K.M.F. v. A.S.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court declined to award costs to either party after finding that neither side was substantially successful in a family-law post-trial costs application.

• Parenting time
• Guardianship
• Reconciliation counselling
• Costs entitlement
• Party conduct
• Family-law

Read case analysis

Yeti Coolers, LLC v. Howsue Holdings Inc.

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court awarded Yeti Coolers a lump sum of $50,000 in costs after its successful trade-mark expungement application, citing the parties’ conduct and Rule 400(3).

• Expungement
• Costs assessment
• Lump sum costs
• Affidavit credibility
• Party conduct
• Costs

Read case analysis

Y.L. v. G.L.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

On a post-trial costs application in a custody dispute, the court held that costs followed the event and ordered costs to the respondent at Scale B.

• Parenting time
• Custody
• Primary residence
• Decision-making authority
• Costs assessment
• Party conduct

Read case analysis

Elliott v. Melnyk

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Tariff C applies to this chambers variation application; the applicant failed to justify a lump sum because she did not produce legal accounts; applying Rule 77.18(4) a multiplier of four on Tariff C is appropriate given the complexity and conduct of the respondent; consequentially costs of $4,000 plus reasonable disbursements are awarded to the applicant payable within 60 days.

Source excerpt

• Child support
• Section 7 expenses
• Variation application
• Costs assessment
• Tariff c
• Lump sum costs versus tariff

Read case analysis

L.V. v. D.V.

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held the Claimant was substantially successful and awarded 80% of costs, reducing the usual full award because of the Respondent’s hardship and litigation conduct.

• Costs awards
• Substantial success
• Imputed income
• Parenting arrangements
• Division of liabilities
• Special costs

Read case analysis

Suckau v. Suckau

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court awarded the plaintiff general costs on scale 3 and special costs for the defendant’s delay, discovery refusals, and late disclosure of documents.

• Costs assessment
• Special costs
• Discovery
• Document disclosure
• Adjournment
• Party conduct

Read case analysis