When is a judge likely to defer fixing the costs of a motion?

18 Here I am dealing with the costs of three motions. There is nothing special or unique about this case that would lead me to defer fixing the costs in favour of referring them for assessment. Indeed, in my view, when a judge is dealing with the costs of a motion, it is preferable that he or she fix the costs rather than putting the parties to the delay of having them assessed. That observation is, of course, subject to the judge being satisfied that he or she has the necessary information to fix the costs in a fair and judicial manner - as required by Murano v. Bank of Montreal, supra. In this case, as previously mentioned, the defendants have provided me with detailed bills of costs on both a solicitor and client and party and party basis. While I do not have the actual time entries of the counsel involved, I do not accept that the absence of that material means that the costs cannot be fairly dealt with. I have no reason to believe that the hours shown in the bills of costs were not actually spent. In any event, the hours spent is only one of the considerations that one should have reference to in assessing costs, particularly party and party costs. I also believe that I am in the best position, having read the motion material and having heard the motions, to make a fair determination of the effort involved in the motions and consequently what would represent a fair allowance for the costs associated therewith. I intend therefore to fix the costs for each of the motions.