How has subrule 24(11)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure been interpreted?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Tigay v. Bucataru, 2017 ONCJ 885 (CanLII):
One of the intents of subrule 24(11)(b) is to discourage unreasonable behaviour by the parties. And to the extent that one of the parties is not so discouraged, this will tend to push the amount of costs higher. See Serra v. Serra, supra Conclusion
"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.
Other Questions
How has Rule 6 of the Rules of Civil Procedure been interpreted? (Ontario, Canada)
Can the court use the application procedure under rule 14.05(h) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine whether there will be any material facts in dispute? (Ontario, Canada)
How has Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure been interpreted? (Ontario, Canada)
What steps have been taken in a civil action under Rule 1(8) of the Rules of Civil Procedure? (Ontario, Canada)
Does subrule 18(14) of the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to an offer to settle? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the legal test for subrule 18 (14) of the Rules of Civil Procedure in Nigeria? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for making an Order under Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure? (Ontario, Canada)
How does rule 16 of the Rules of Civil Procedure apply to summary judgment? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for pleading under Rule 21.01, 25.11 and 25.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure? (Ontario, Canada)
Is Rule 2 (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure sufficient to add a fourth fundamental purpose for costs? (Ontario, Canada)
