What is the effect of an order requiring the respondent to pay costs of an indemnification claim?

The respondent seeks to appeal that order. He argues that the trial judge erred in failing to hold the petitioner bound by the contractual obligation in the indemnification clause and, therefore, did not exercise her discretion judicially. As well, the respondent argues that the trial judge erred by failing to find that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to “reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct” of a nature that would warrant an award of costs of that nature in accordance with Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3.