Discretion in Costs

Today's decision in Schneider v. St. Clair Region Conservation Authority, 2009 ONCA 830 gives a good illustration of where the Court will reduce costs because the issues under consideration are (reasonably) novel and the costs sought are out of proportion to the matters in dispute.  The Court writes:

 

[4]              With respect to the Region's trial costs, the region seeks costs in the amount of $50,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.  As compared to the Township's costs and given the length of the trial, the amount sought does not appear to be excessive.  In the context of this case, however, we nonetheless, consider that a reduced amount is more appropriate and would award $18,000 inclusive of GST and disbursements.  We do so for the following reasons.

 

[5]              First, the issues raised with respect to the Region's liability involved an interpretation of s. 4(1) of the Occupier's Liability Act, not previously decided by our court.  The decision clarified the law respecting occupier's liability in a significant respect. 

 

[6]              Second, the total amount of costs the respondents are being asked to pay is significant and would be disproportionate to the amount in issue.  The Township's costs have already been agreed to by the parties and cannot now be changed.  In light of the amounts claimed and the issues involved, it would not be fair and reasonable to require the respondents to pay the full amount being claimed by the Region.