|
Civil Litigation Cases - Delivery of Bill of Costs. Con-sult Mechanical Inc. v. Anderson Webb Limited
In Con-sult Mechanical Inc. v. Anderson Webb Limited (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court the court emphasizes the need to submit "a costs outline or bill of costs" in litigation ["at least one week before the hearing"], failing which the court's practice is the deny costs in that party's favour:[2] The responding party requested “full indemnity costs” but did not deliver , or specify in its factum the amount of costs it was seeking, contrary to para. 52(c)(iii) of the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings, which states:Unless the court has directed an earlier deadline, the parties must upload the agreement they have reached on costs, or their bills of costs or costs outlines, at least one week before the hearing.
This provision, and predecessor requirements, have been the longstanding practice in the Divisional Court. Compliance with these requirements has been erratic, and based on anecdotal experience, seems to be getting worse over the past two years. [3] Perhaps the reasons for these requirements are not well understood. The court wants the parties’ positions on costs before the parties know the court’s decision. Further, the court wishes to deal with everything, including costs, in one hearing process. Reconvening a panel, weeks later, to revisit a matter to decide costs, is not a good use of the court’s time and is a disproportionate expense in light of the value of most costs awards in this court.
[4] The court has made these points in past endorsements but considers it necessary to repeat them: where no costs materials have been provided in accordance with case management directions and/or the Practice Direction, the court’s general practice is to award no costs. In most cases the court will make this decision without providing reasons for it.
[5] We wish to be clear that we are not singling out the Respondent in this case: the responding factum was excellent. We address this issue in this case to reiterate a point of practice before this court that appears to be eluding a growing number of parties appearing in this court. The following cases are examples: Gong v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2023 ONSC 3718 (Div. Ct.), at para. 12; Sinnappu v. Tharmalingam, 2023 ONSC 4456, (Div. Ct.), at para. 4; Toronto (City) v. Minto (Mimico) Inc., 2024 ONSC 2674 (Div. Ct.), at para. 15; Abuoweimer v. Abu-Ewimer, 2024 ONSC 4802 (Div. C.t.), at para. 1; Holborn Chicopee GP Inc. v. Holborn Holdings Ltd., 2024 ONSC 4799 (Div. Ct.), at para. 1; Palmer v. Arthur, 2024 ONSC 4800 (Div. Ct.), at para. 1; K.C.C. Chooka Cabinet Ltd. v. Kingsway Consulting Group Inc., 2026 ONSC 378 (Div. Ct.), at para. 27.
|
