Nature Conservancy of Canada / Societe Canadienne pour la Conservation de la Nature v. Waterton Land Trust Ltd.

摘要

Civil practice and procedure-Costs - Particular orders as to costs - Costs on solicitor and own client basis-Litigation involved validity and enforceability of conservation easements - Plaintiff alleged but failed to prove fraud - Court found principal cause of litigation was plaintiff's preoccupation with its public reputation, not seeking adjustment of fence height for any conservation purposes - O defendants and W defendants had separate counsel throughout trial and incurred separate sets of costs - Each group of defendants sought costs on solicitor-client basis - W defendants were entitled to costs on solicitor and own-client basis from plaintiff - O defendants were awarded costs on escalated scale - Outcomes were not predictable - Plaintiff proved number of allegations of fact although its theory of case failed - It was not appropriate case for only single set of costs to all defendants collectively - W defendants were not aligned in interest on all issues with O defendants - Two groups of defendants avoided overlap in evidence they adduced and minimized overlap in topics they pursued in cross examination and motion arguments - If all defendants had been defended by single counsel, total cost would not be too far off combined cost of both sets of counsel - Defendants were completely successful in defending all claims - Litigation was very complex - Issues were important to plaintiff beyond specific lawsuit and were important to public because of their novelty - Allegations of fraud against individuals were unfounded and plaintiff was reprehensible and egregious for making them - Alleging collusion by individuals, as directing minds of W, in land titles fraud and complicity in deliberate unlawful conduct, would be known by plaintiffs counsel to risk award of solicitor-client costs if allegations could not be proven - Plaintiff should have foreseen failing in its pursuit against individuals personally - Admission by plaintiff that W individuals were sued personally to compel their testimony against different defendant, not to recover any relief against them, had appearance of abuse of process - O defendants were unsuccessful in their arguments that would have undermined enforceability of most other conservation easements of plaintiffs - O first disclosed material and relevant information on tax issue on eve of trial - There were unproven allegations against O's character and integrity - Parties to counterclaim of O defendants were to each bear their own costs.