(Supreme Court of Canada) A challenge was to be made by Indian Bands to a prohibition on logging on their lands without prior authorisation. They asserted aboriginal title to the land in question and complained of a breach of their constitutionally protected aboriginal rights. They sought a protective costs order.
Held: ‘The jurisdiction to order costs of a proceeding is a venerable one. The English common law courts did not have inherent jurisdiction over costs, but beginning in the late 13th century they were given the power by statute to order costs in favour of a successful party. Courts of equity had an entirely discretionary jurisdiction to order costs according to the dictates of conscience.’ The court set down four principles: (i) The party seeking the order must be impecunious to the extent that without such an order that party would have been deprived of the opportunity to proceed with the case; (ii) The claimant must establish a prima facie case of sufficient merit to warrant its pursuit; (iii) Public law cases, as a class, were different from ordinary civil disputes, and the case must fall into a sub-category where the special circumstances that justified an award of interim costs were related to the public importance of the questions at issue in the case; and (iv) It was for the judge at first instance to determine whether a particular case, which might be classified as special by its very nature as a public interest case, was special enough to rise to the level where the unusual measure of ordering costs would be appropriate..
Judges:
LeBel J
Citations:
(2003) 114 CCR 2d 108
Cited by:
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Goodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton and Another (No 2) CA 12-Oct-2005
The applicant intended to appeal refusal of her challenge to the verdict of the coroner. For the first time at appeal she sought a protective costs order.
Held: The Corner House case established that a request for a protective costs order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Costs
Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.223254