FavoriteLoadingSave to briefcase | Rating: | By (2012)

  • PrintEmail Link
  • Viewed 272 times | Saved to 261 briefcases
Standard Life Assurance v Elliott, (2007) 86 OR (3d) 221


P wanted to recover disability monies. D counterclaimed each person who touched her file and that each person should reimburse her bc they made the error.

P defended counterclaim by admitting it was vicariously responsible for anything their employees did – but D continued to pursue the indiv employees. P brought motion to strike out claim – court did strike them out and said it was only done to put pressure and was an abuse of process.


Is P entitled to costs from solicitor? What is the scale of costs and who are they awarded against?


Don’t have to prove deliberate wrongdoing to award substantial costs against the solicitor – but just because you establish abuse of process doesn’t mean you will for sure have costs against the solicitor


D says she told the lawyer to take the steps he did.

Substantial indemnity costs are rare, BUT appropriate where:
**One party in litigation misbehaved in an abusive manner
**Brought proceedings wholly devoid of merit
**Unnecessarily ran up the costs of litigation

Substantial Indemnity costs between the solicitor and client – joint and severable liability (so P could go after either party to recover the monies)
**Substantial on the basis of the tactical decision
**Young SCC – must be some evidence of deliberate misdoing
***This standard isn’t necessarily the governing standard – must be cautious in awarding this kind of cost scale
***This case DOES NOT restrict the application of 57.07(1)(c) to cases of bad faith
***Don’t have to prove deliberate wrongdoing – but just bc you establish abuse of process doesn’t mean you will for sure have costs against the solicitor


Substantial costs awarded joint and severably between solicitor and client

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to participate.

This document is a general discussion of certain legal and related issues and must not be relied upon as legal advice. This document may not have been written or reviewed by a legal practitioner. For more information, please see the website Terms of Service.