July 18, 2018
200-09-008957-158; 200-09-008958-156; 200-09-008959-154;
200-09-008960-152; 200-09-008961-150; 200-09-008962-158;
200-09-008963-156; 200-09-008964-154; 200-09-008965-151;
Giroux, Bouchard, St-Pierre
Application for provision for costs. Dismissed.
The criteria established in British Columbia (Minister of Forests v. Okanagan Indian Band (S.C. Can., 2003-12-12), 2003 SCC 71, SOQUIJ AZ-50211023, J.E. 2004-59,  3 S.C.R. 371 have not been met, for the following reasons in particular. The application for a provision for costs is not intended to allow the appeals to move forward but rather to obtain reimbursement of the costs incurred and past expenses, so that there is zero cost to exercising the right to appeal. At the time of the application, the appeals had been brought, the case management conferences had been held, and the briefs had been written and filed, as had the declarations of readiness for trial. Furthermore, by proceeding thus, the appellants presented the party concerned by the application and the Court with a fait accompli. In this context, granting the appellants what they claim would be tantamount to endorsing an [translation] “open bar” or “carte blanche” attitude, an unacceptable way of doing things against which the trial judge had warned them. Ultimately, the appellants had sufficient financial means to argue their rights before the Court without it being necessary to grant them a provision for costs.
*Summary by SOQUIJ
Text of the decision:
An RSS feed allows you to keep up to date with any recent updates published on a website. By subcribing to our RSS feed, you will automatically receive the latest news related to your RSS feed and view them at any time.