What is Windfields LLP entitled to costs for misrepresentations in its application for a single housekeeping establishment permit?

This finding of misrepresentations in these permit applications is typical of the findings in regard to all of the properties where such conduct was engaged in. Ordinarily that kind of finding could be seen as founding a fraudulent cover-up, conduct which should attract costs on the higher scale. However, in this case the respondents did have a relatively strong argument, in view of Good v. Waterloo and the wording of the Oshawa by-law, that what they were doing was within the meaning of “single housekeeping establishment”. In other words, they knew they were pushing the envelope but they had an argument in law that could uphold what they were doing particularly if the former strict approach to interpretation of zoning by-laws in the landowners favour still applied. I do not see this as a case of such reprehensible conduct as to warrant a costs award on greater than the partial indemnity scale, on the basis of factors (e) and (f) of rule 57.01(1). It does represent a group of people consciously playing hardball to test the outer limits of the by-law. They took their chances in their own self-interest and they lost. Entitlement to Costs: Windfields LLP