No unfairness arose by making each plaintiff responsible for payment of full costs award

Civil Practice and Procedure - Costs - Scale and quantum of costs

Canada Revenue Agency conducted criminal investigation of plaintiff tax preparers’ preparation of scientific research and experimental development claims on behalf of taxpayer clients. Plaintiffs attempted to overcome clients’ lack of documentation by creating after-the-fact evidence of inter-corporate transactions. Plaintiffs were charged with fraud under Criminal Code but Crown counsel ultimately entered stay of proceedings. Plaintiffs brought actions against Government of Canada for damages resulting from criminal investigation, alleging negligent investigation, breach of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, misfeasance in public office, malicious prosecution, and intentional interference with contractual relations. Actions were dismissed and parties were invited to submit arguments on costs in writing. Costs awarded. Although matters were not consolidated, matters were tried together and single set of reasons would apply to both actions. Plaintiffs’ cases did not meet conditions required for public-interest costs relief. Plaintiffs were made aware of potential cost consequences of making and continuing those allegations but they persisted. This was case where plaintiffs’ litigation conduct justified payment of enhanced costs to defendant. This was not overly complex case in legal or evidentiary terms, and ordinarily award of party-and-party costs at mid-point of Column III would be justified . Costs would be awarded in this case at upper level of Column V. Plaintiffs’ obligations for costs and disbursement was fixed in amount of $675,000.00 payable jointly and severally by three plaintiffs. No apparent unfairness arose by making each of plaintiffs responsible for payment of full costs award in event of default by any of others.

Gordon v. Canada (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 6852, 2019 FC 1348, R.L. Barnes J. (F.C.); additional reasons (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 3036, 2019 FC 853, R.L. Barnes J. (F.C.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

COVID-vaccine skeptic doctor loses anti-SLAPP case at Court of Appeal

Information and Privacy Commissioner calls for retention of public input in Policing Act amendments

Ontario Superior Court confirms party’s entitlement to broad medical and rehabilitation benefits

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds estate's right to full range of damages in a vehicle accident case

Legal groups voice concerns over Ford repeatedly saying he wants 'like-minded' judges

Upcoming FACL conference focused on AI’s impact on profession, advancing careers of Asian lawyers

Most Read Articles

Legal groups voice concerns over Ford repeatedly saying he wants 'like-minded' judges

Housing supply needs more public-private collaboration, less red tape, say lawyers

COVID-vaccine skeptic doctor loses anti-SLAPP case at Court of Appeal

Legal Innovation Zone launches program to help legal tech entrepreneurs turn ideas into businesses