Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The court was asked to determine appropriate party-and-party costs following a complex trial.

• Dispute centered on whether Tariff A, Scale 1 or Scale 2, under Nova Scotia’s Civil Procedure Rule 77, should apply.

• The plaintiff argued for Scale 2 due to the complexity and significance of the litigation and the defendant’s late-raised defence.

• The Attorney General of Nova Scotia contended that Scale 1 was more appropriate and cost-efficient.

• Justice Chipman applied Scale 2 and allowed trial-day costs at 1.5 times the tariff rate, citing fairness and proportionality.

• The court reaffirmed the discretion to depart from strict tariff norms when warranted by the circumstances.

Facts and outcome

Following a complex trial that ended in a ruling in favour of Singapore Technologies Marine Ltd. against the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the court was tasked with determining the appropriate costs award. The legal issue in this post-trial phase was not about liability or damages, but about the scale and amount of party-and-party costs under Nova Scotia’s Civil Procedure Rule 77.

The plaintiff sought costs on Scale 2 of Tariff A, arguing that the litigation involved complex legal and factual issues, took seven days to try, and featured a late-raised limitation defence by the Crown. The plaintiff emphasized that it had prevailed at trial and that applying Scale 2 would more fairly reflect the resources and effort required to prosecute the claim. It also requested that trial days be compensated at 1.5 times the daily rate under the tariff due to the trial’s demands.

The Crown acknowledged that costs should be awarded but maintained that Scale 1 was appropriate. It argued that the issues, while important to the parties, were not novel or unusually difficult and that the trial length was within the normal range for commercial cases. The Attorney General also pointed out that trial-day multipliers should not be used except in rare circumstances.

Justice Chipman ultimately sided with the plaintiff. He found that the issues were of sufficient complexity and importance to warrant Scale 2. He also noted that while the trial was not extraordinarily long, the late-stage assertion of a limitation defence by the Crown contributed to increased effort and preparation by the plaintiff. Justice Chipman found that Scale 2, coupled with a 1.5x multiplier for trial days, was a proportionate and fair outcome, consistent with the principles established in Grue v. McLellan and Armoyan v. Armoyan.

The court confirmed that judges retain discretion under Rule 77 to deviate from the tariff when necessary to achieve fairness and proportionality. The ruling emphasized that costs should not merely reflect a mechanical formula, but also consider the conduct of the parties and the complexity of the proceeding.

The court awarded party-and-party costs based on Tariff A, Scale 2, including 1.5x trial-day enhancements, and confirmed that disbursements were not in dispute. This decision reinforced the judiciary’s discretion to craft just cost outcomes in complex litigation.