The database contains 29 case summaries relating to Costs and Security for Costs. The summaries are sorted in reverse date order with 20 summaries per page. If there are more than 20 summaries, use the navigation links at the bottom of the page.
Bow Valley Husky (Bermuda) Ltd. v. Saint John Shipbuilding Ltd., 1999 CanLII 19159
This was an application to determine the costs to be awarded the successful Defendant. The case is important because it illustrates how significant a cost award can be in a difficult and complex case. The action arose out of a fire on an oil rig. The trial of the action took 53 days and was followed by an appeal to the Newfoundland Court of Appeal and a further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The case was a difficult and complex one. There were 26 applications and 13 pre-trial conferences. The successful Defendant asked for lump sum costs in excess of $3 million. The Plaintiff argued that the costs should be in the amount of approximately $500,000.00. The court ultimately awarded the Defendant $1.45 million. (Note: This award was not enhanced as a result of any double costs or enhanced costs rule based on a settlement offer.)
Richardson International Ltd. v. The Starodubskoe, 1999 CanLii 7836
In this case the court held that the cost of posting bail is an appropriate matter to factor into an award of security for costs. The court noted that local bonding costs might be a guide to the amount of security. The court reviewed the evidence as to the actual cost of posting the bail and ordered security for bail at 3.125% of the amount of the bail per year for two years. The court disallowed a request for 20% of the amount of the bail. This was the amount the Plaintiff's managers purported to charge the Plaintiff for arranging bail. The court considered this unreasonable.
Jean v. The "Capitaine Duval", 1998 CanLII 8435
This was a motion for solicitor client costs. The applicants had been successful in a prior motion to strike the Statement of Claim on the grounds that it was outside the jurisdiction of the court. The motions judge granted increased costs in the amount of $20,000.00. The motions judge said he was satisfied that there had been misconduct on the part of the Plaintiff justifying an increased award of costs. The misconduct consisted of commencing the action prior to the date set for payment in a demand letter sent to the Defendants. Further, the court was satisfied that the arrest of the Defendant vessel was done solely to cause the Defendants embarrassment.
Porto Seguro Companhia De Seguros Gerais v. Belcan S.A. et.al., 1998 CanLII 8255
This was an appeal from a decision of the Prothonotary in which the Prothonotary refused to pay out money paid into court as security for costs. The Plaintiff's action against the Defendant had been dismissed at trial. The Plaintiff appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and the appeal was dismissed. The Plaintiff further appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ordered a new trial and awarded the Plaintiff its costs before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The Plaintiff and Defendant each subsequently brought motions to be paid the amount posted as security. The Prothonotary ruled that the security should be kept in court pending the ultimate disposition of the new trial. On appeal, the appeal judge noted that a discretionary order of a Prothonotary should not be disturbed unless it was clearly wrong or raised issues vital to the final issue of the case. The appeal judge held that the Prothonotary's decision in the present case did not meet this test.
Canadian Pacific Forest Products v. Termar Navigation Co. Inc., No.T-1719-91 (F.C.T.D.)
This was a motion for costs by the successful Plaintiff. The Plaintiff sought costs assessed on a solicitor - client basis or, in the alternative in accordance with the maximum number of units under Column IV of Part II Tariff B and a doubling of the counsel fee as a result of offers to settle. The claim for solicitor client costs was disallowed on the grounds that there was no misconduct on the part of the Defendant. The claim for costs under Column IV was also disallowed on the grounds that both parties had made a relatively simple case complex. With respect to the request for a doubling of the counsel fee the Court noted that a number of offers had been made by the Plaintiff and that the only revocation of the prior offers was by the making of subsequent offers. Each of the offers was more favorable to the Defendants than the judgement at trial. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was entitled to a double counsel fee. The Court did, however, disallow disbursements of payments made to foreign counsel and of travel expenses of Plaintiff's representatives at trial.
Kajat v. The Arctic Taglu, 1997 CanLII 5937
This case concerned a collision between a fishing vessel and a tug and tow combination. The full facts of the case are summarized under Collisions. This application was to determine costs, amongst other issues. The Plaintiff applied for increased costs on the grounds that the Defendant had taken extreme positions and that some of the Defendants had been less than candid. The Court agreed that the conduct of the Defendants, other than the Crown, merited an award of increased costs. The Defendants also applied for an order that since the Plaintiff's husband was found 15% at fault for the accident the Plaintiff's costs should likewise be reduced by this amount. The Defendants relied on the British Columbia Negligence Act for this proposition. The Court, however, held that costs was a matter within the court's discretion pursuant to the Federal Court Rules and that, accordingly, the Negligence Act did not apply. The Court refused to exercise the discretion as requested by the Defendants and gave the Plaintiff her full costs. (Note: The Trial Judgment of the court holding the Defendants liable was set aside on appeal and a new trial ordered.)
CSL Group Inc. v. Canada, 1997 CanLII 5616
This was an application by the Defendant for increased costs. The Defendant had been successful in its defence of an action brought by the Plaintiff. The action had been a test case in which the Plaintiff sought to recover substantial damages for delays experienced by its ships in the transit of the St. Lawrence Seaway during November and December, 1989. The delays were caused by a public service strike. The Court agreed with the Defendant that the case was unusual in that the issues of both liability and quantum were complex. The Court ordered that the Defendant's costs should be taxed under Column V of Tariff B.
Margem Chartering Co. Inc v. Cosena SRL and The "Bocsa", No. T-2418-96
This was an application by the Defendant to have the Plaintiff's action dismissed for failing to provide security for costs as required by a previous peremptory order. The Court considered the test to be applied when a party fails to comply with a peremptory order (also referred to as an "unless" order). The Court noted that there were two different principles of law at issue. First, a litigant ought not to be deprived of a right to have its case heard, so long as any damage to other parties is compensable. Second, a litigant who fails to comply with a peremptory order will not normally be permitted to continue the action. The Court noted that to overcome the presumption the party who failed to comply with the order must demonstrate that the failure to comply was not intentional or contumelious. In the case before it the Court found that the Plaintiff's failure to post security was due to circumstances beyond its control and therefore refused to dismiss the action.
Shorworld International Inc. et.al. v. Fednav Ltd. et.al., 1997 CanLII 4746
In this carriage of goods case the Defendant delivered a formal offer to settle pursuant to Rule 344.1. The offer did not provide for costs but the Plaintiff accepted it and demanded costs up to the date of the offer based on column III of Part I of Tariff B. The Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the costs demanded.