Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
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.
The court held that the plaintiffs remained entitled to costs despite unproven fraud allegations against Guo and Xie, and it apportioned costs among the defendants.
The Court upheld the motion judge: the factual findings on visibility, vessel direction, speed, intoxication and lack of lookout supported the conclusion that Comrie and Monteiro alone caused the collision so the Government Respondents were not liable; s.29 of the Marine Liability Act limits monetary liability to specified categories ('claims for loss of life or personal injury') and does not include costs or prejudgment interest; leave to appeal the costs awards was denied except the motion judge erred in allocating Algra's $400,000 costs solely to the Comrie Estate, which must be corrected…
Source excerpt
Application dismissed on costs allocation. The court refused Sanderson and Bullock orders, found the threshold met for some defendants but not others, and left ordinary costs to follow success.
The court rejected Lee Ingraham’s bid for double costs, finding the plaintiffs were not unreasonable to refuse settlement offers. Ingraham received Scale B costs for the action.
Costs ruling after a successful liability appeal: the court ordered Sanderson costs against the unsuccessful defendants and denied Dueck’s claim for cross-appeal costs.
Costs ruling in a motor vehicle injury case: the plaintiff gets costs only to the date of a $250,000 advance payment, and the Chand defendants get costs after that date. A Sanderson order is refused.
The Court of Appeal awarded costs to Jackman, Paine and Valley Traffic Systems after they achieved substantial success on appeal, and refused Sanderson and Bullock orders against Hanna.
The court held that, given the exceptional circumstances—joint representation, overlapping and unparticularized costs, absence of corresponding cost evidence from Football Canada, and potential prejudice to the Applicant—the appropriate course is to defer determination of costs arising from the discontinuance against Football Nova Scotia until the merits hearing; thereby allowing the trial judge to assess costs in context. Each party bears its costs of the deferral motion.
Source excerpt
The court refused a Sanderson or Bullock costs order between defendants, finding the plaintiff had not justified joining the successful defendants in a separate accident claim.
Explore more
