What is the test for "extraordinary costs" in a personal injury case?

In Young v. Young, 1993 CanLII 34 (SCC), [1993] 4 S.C.R. 3, McLachlin J. described the circumstances when elevated costs are warranted as: …only where there has been reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties.

In Bond v. Brookfield Asset Management Inc., [2011] O. J. No. 2760 (S.C.J.), the defendants submitted that substantial indemnity costs should be awarded because there was no basis on which the plaintiff could reasonably assert that Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter and no basis for the plaintiff to refute that Ontario was a forum non conveniens. Perell J. held at para. 6: In my opinion, it would not be a proper exercise of the court’s discretion to order costs on a substantial indemnity basis simply because a party has a weak case or even a very weak case.

I have determined that costs should be awarded in this case on a partial indemnity basis. The plaintiff’s conduct, in my opinion, did not rise to the threshold as set out in Young v. Young to warrant the sanction of substantial indemnity costs. That does not mean, however, that I cannot take the plaintiff’s conduct into account in fixing partial indemnity costs. A party’s conduct is expressly referred to in Rule 51.01(e) (f) (g) as a factor that the court may consider.