Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute focused on whether the City of Thunder Bay was entitled to recover litigation costs after the plaintiff chose to join a class action.

• Assessment of whether legal efforts, including document review and witness preparation, qualified as “costs thrown away.”

• Court rejected the City’s claim due to lack of detailed billing evidence and the broader utility of the work to the parallel class action.

• Plaintiff’s request for case conference costs denied because the issue wasn’t raised at the time of the conference.

• Judicial discretion emphasized in evaluating proportionality and reasonableness of claimed legal fees.

• Neither party was declared the winner, as both the motion and cross-motion were dismissed without costs.

Facts of the case

In St. Joseph’s Hospital v. Thunder Bay (City), the plaintiff hospital filed an individual action against the City for property damage allegedly caused by the City’s addition of sodium hydroxide to its water supply. The resulting pinhole leaks in copper piping led to a damages claim of approximately $205,000. While a class action involving the same issue had been certified, the plaintiff chose to continue its individual litigation until March 2025, when it indicated its intent to join the class proceeding.

The City responded by moving for a permanent stay of the individual action and sought $62,732.50 in “costs thrown away,” claiming it had incurred unnecessary legal expenses due to the plaintiff’s shift in litigation strategy. The plaintiff cross-moved for a temporary stay and requested $1,561.50 for a prior case conference.

Motions and court’s reasoning

The parties agreed to a stay of the individual action at the hearing. However, Justice Lepere was asked to decide whether the City’s legal preparation—specifically, revising a court-ordered Affidavit of Documents and preparing for now-cancelled examinations for discovery—warranted compensation.

The City argued that significant time and legal fees were wasted due to the plaintiff’s late move to the class action. The plaintiff countered that the City’s efforts were required by court order or remained useful in the broader litigation context.

The court found that:

• The work on document disclosure was mandated by a judge, not wasted.

• Preparations for the cancelled discoveries lacked sufficient documentation to prove they were unnecessary.

• The plaintiff’s delay in joining the class action did not automatically entitle the City to compensation.

Justice Lepere also dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for case conference costs, noting that silence on costs in a judicial endorsement generally means no costs are awarded unless explicitly stated.

Conclusion and result

The individual action was formally stayed. The City’s motion for costs thrown away and the plaintiff’s cross-motion for case conference costs were both dismissed. The court found there was divided success and made no order as to costs on the motion or cross-motion.

Neither party emerged as the winner—the court concluded that both parties should bear their own costs in light of their partial wins and procedural choices.