|
Civil Litigation Dicta - Costs - Public Interest Litigation (2). Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Sirius XM Canada Inc.
In Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Sirius XM Canada Inc. (Fed CA, 2024) the Federal Court of Appeal considered 'public interest' costs:[12] The respondent seeks elevated costs equal to 50% of its expenses. It says the lack of arguable merit in the application warrants an adverse costs consequence. We disagree to this extent: this was not just a rerun of SOCAN (2010). Important and arguably somewhat unclear issues of practice and procedure before administrative decision-makers were also involved. As well, this Court does not want to create a disincentive against judicial reviews of administrative decisions of public interest. Therefore, in our discretion, we will fix the respondent’s costs in the all-inclusive amount of $15,000. . Ontario Place for All Inc. v. Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure
In Ontario Place for All Inc. v. Ontario Ministry of Infrastructure (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court considers public interest costs:Costs
[26] Ontario Place for All is a public interest litigant with no personal interest in this litigation. Its goal was to conserve the natural environment and hold the government accountable for environmental requirements when redeveloping important public lands. I agree with its position that, if unsuccessful on the motion, it should not be required to pay costs. . Ramsay v. Waterloo Region District School Board
In Ramsay v. Waterloo Region District School Board (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers public interest costs, here in an unsuccessful JR against a school board trustee disciplinary decision:[64] Although the issues dealt with on this application may be of some public interest, I do not consider the magnitude of same to be great enough to affect the usual determination of costs in an application of this nature. The decision under review primarily affects an interest that is specific to Ramsay, being the negative finding that he breached the WRDSB’s Code of Conduct. I consider that the public interest is better served by directing that Ramsay, as the unsuccessful party, pay to the WRDSB, the publicly-supported successful party, a contribution toward its costs of responding to this application.
[65] Accordingly, costs of the application, fixed in the amount of $7,500 inclusive of all disbursements and applicable taxes, shall be paid to WRDSB by Ramsay, if demanded. . Carolyn Burjoski v. Waterloo Region District School Board
In Carolyn Burjoski v. Waterloo Region District School Board (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considers a JR against a school board decision to stop a "presentation to a Committee of the Whole Meeting". Here the courts considers the JR applicant's 'public interest' costs argument after dismissal:Costs
46. The WRSDB has been successful in its response to this application and seeks its costs as a result.
47. Burjoski submits that the WRDSB should not receive any award of costs. Instead, she submits that the issue she has raised is of such public interest that no costs should be ordered.
48. I see no compelling reason why the usual approach as to awarding costs to the successful party should be departed from in this case. Although Burjoski’s perspective on what students should and should not read may be shared by others, it is not of such a nature as to operate to insulate her from an order that she contribute to the costs of the opposing party when she initiates a court proceeding.
49. Costs fixed at $5000, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes, shall be paid by Burjoski to the WRDSB if demanded. . South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association v. 1423 Bloor Street West Inc. et al.
In South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association v. 1423 Bloor Street West Inc. et al. (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a costs issue, here in a leave to appeal motion:[5] The moving party submits that it should be considered a public interest litigant, that it has no assets, and that, if unsuccessful, no costs should be awarded against it.
[6] I am not persuaded that the moving party is a public interest litigant in accordance with the test set out in CAMPP Windsor Essex Residents Association v. Windsor (City), 2020 ONSC 4612 (Div. Ct.), at para 164. The moving party is a neighbourhood association opposing development applications in its neighbourhood. Its members are directly impacted by the proposed development. While stating it is raising important planning issues, it also acknowledges in its factum that it is essentially arguing “not in our backyard.”
[7] That said, I accept that, as a neighbourhood association, it has little to no assets. This is a relevant factor in my assessment and will reduce the quantum of costs ordered.
[8] Overall, I find costs of $10,000 to be appropriate. Therefore, the moving party shall pay costs of $10,000 to the Kingsett responding parties. No costs are ordered for or against the City of Toronto, which did not make any submissions on the motions.
|
