I also reject the argument that the plaintiff should recover costs on a substantial indemnity basis. This was a professional negligence case and not one of fraud. The defendant’s actions, whilst falling below the required standard of care, were not “reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous” – the required standard attracting substantial indemnity costs awards: Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3 at para. 251.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.