What is the case law on no costs when there is an unsuccessful party to the litigation?

Moreover, the authorities suggest that this discretion is much less likely to be exercised when the unsuccessful party is a well-financed litigant who was seeking to advance their own personal interests in the litigation, and was not motivated by any coincident public interest that may have been furthered by the resulting decision. As Sharpe J. (as he then was) stated in Mahar v. Rogers Cablesystems Ltd., at para. 48, the “incentives and disincentives created by costs rules” assume that the parties are “primarily motivated by the pursuit of their own private and financial interests.” Accordingly, when an unsuccessful party is motivated in the litigation by their own commercial interests, and not by the selfless ideal of advancing a greater public interest, the theoretical rationale for the exercise of this discretionary jurisdiction to make no costs order is wholly absent.