Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• This costs endorsement arises from an action and related summary judgment motions involving Tara Jessica Price Fawcett, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, and The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO).
• CHEO succeeded as a defendant, entitling it to a partial indemnity costs award for both the action and the motion.
• Hours claimed by CHEO on a partial indemnity basis were found to be excessive by the court.
• Sun Life's summary judgment motion failed, while the plaintiff's boomerang summary judgment motion against Sun Life also failed, resulting in divided success.
• Because neither the plaintiff nor Sun Life prevailed on their respective motions, the court made no costs order between those two parties.
• Proportionality and the Rule 57 factors under Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure were the governing principles for the costs determination.

Facts of the case

Tara Jessica Price Fawcett brought an action against Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Court File No. CV-20-00084920-0000, Ottawa). The matter came before Justice Gary Tranmer and was heard in writing. The document before the court was a Costs Endorsement issued May 28, 2026. The underlying facts and merits of the action are not set out in this endorsement; only the costs consequences of the motions are addressed.

Policy terms or contractual clauses at issue

No policy terms, contractual clauses, or legislative provisions are quoted or discussed in this Costs Endorsement. The document is confined entirely to the question of costs following the motion proceedings. Any substantive issues in dispute between the parties are not disclosed in this document.

Court's reasoning and analysis

Justice Tranmer applied the principles and Rule 57 factors identified by the parties in determining the appropriate costs awards. In respect of CHEO, the court found that the hours claimed on a partial indemnity basis were excessive. The judge reduced the claim accordingly, awarding an amount considered fair, reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with the parties' expectations. As between the plaintiff and Sun Life, the court characterized the outcome as one of divided success: Sun Life failed on its summary judgment motion, and the plaintiff failed on her boomerang summary judgment motion against Sun Life. Because neither party succeeded against the other, the court declined to make any costs order on those motions. The court also declined to impose a timeline for payment of the costs awarded to CHEO.

Ruling and overall outcome

CHEO was the successful party in respect of costs. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay CHEO costs for both the action and the motion in the amount of $20,000 plus HST, together with disbursements of $1,766.41. As between the plaintiff and Sun Life, there was no order for costs, as success on the motions was divided. The total monetary award in favor of CHEO amounts to $20,000 plus HST and $1,766.41 in disbursements; the HST component is not quantified in the endorsement.