The Court held that the defendant's unreasonable conduct in opposing a s 66G application — including raising unmeritorious arguments, filing a Succession Act summons less than a week before hearing, and a pattern of unsuccessful litigation — warranted departure from the usual order that co-owners' costs be paid from proceeds of sale, instead ordering the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs from her share of the estate or personally. The Court declined to order indemnity costs, finding that the plaintiff's pre-hearing proposals did not constitute genuine compromises sufficient to justify such an order. The Court also refused to vary costs orders made by another judge in earlier proceedings, holding that the current proceedings were not a vehicle for revisiting those orders.
The full text is available to signed-in members.