Background:

• The court addressed the issue of costs related to two motions: the "undertakings motion" (decision dated February 16, 2024) and the "security motion" (decision dated April 12, 2024).
• The Defendants were successful in both motions.

Key Issues:

1. Undertakings Motion:
   • Defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $20,712.60.
   • The Plaintiff opposed substantial indemnity, arguing the motion was routine and not vexatious.
2. Security Motion:
   • Defendants sought costs totaling $258,901.81, including $97,341.87 in disbursements.
   • Plaintiff contested the quantum, arguing:
     • The $83,387.50 disbursement for project review was excessive.
     • The motion was necessary regardless of opposition.
     • Fees sought were excessive.

Court's Decision:

• Undertakings Motion:
  • Costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis at $15,000. The motion was not unreasonable or oppressive.
• Security Motion:
  • Legal fees awarded at $110,000, reduced from the $240,000 claimed, plus HST, totaling $174,522.94.
  • The court found the project review fees ($83,387.50) to be excessive, awarding only $41,693.75.
  • Total disbursements were fixed at $50,222.94.

Total Costs Awarded:

• Plaintiff to pay $15,000 for the undertakings motion and $174,522.94 for the security motion, payable forthwith.