The Removal of Costs Consequences… Good or Bad?

Written By Justin A. Villeneuve

Fact-Checked

Updated June 13, 2024

This page has been written, edited, and reviewed by our partners who have over 50 years of combined experience as personal injury attorneys following our comprehensive editorial guidelines. Our last modified date shows when this page was last reviewed.

In the context of litigation in Ontario, Canada, “cost consequences” refer to the financial implications of a legal case’s outcome. When a lawsuit is filed and proceeds through the court system, various parties may incur expenses related to legal fees, court costs, expert witness fees, and other associated expenses. The concept of cost consequences pertains to which party or parties will be responsible for covering these costs.

Why Do Cost Consequences Exist?

As discussed by the Ontario Court of Appeal: 

[C]osts have more recently come to be recognized as an important tool in the hands of the court to influence the way the parties conduct themselves and to prevent abuse of the court’s process. 

Barbour v. Bailey, 2016 ONCA 334 (CanLII), at para. 9

In addition to preventing the abuse of court process costs, awards encourage settlement, deter frivolous actions and defences and discourage unnecessary steps that unduly prolong the litigation.

Criticism of Costs Consequences

The most common criticism of cost consequences is that it undermines the pursuit of justice. It is a deterrent to those with legitimate claims who don’t want to risk consequences. 

Do Cost Consequences Deter Legitimate Cases?

In my experience, the answer is no. Most people with legitimate cases will obtain legal advice before deciding whether to pursue a case. If it’s a legitimate case with a good prospect of success, cost consequences will be discussed but are rarely the deciding factor. The decision is most often made on a cost-benefit analysis rather than the consequences of losing. 

This doesn’t mean that costs and consequences don’t sway legitimate cases. They are a vital tool in motivating early settlements and deterring litigants from refusing reasonable offers. 

The Removal of Costs Consequences in Administrative Tribunals

Tribunals such as the License and Appeals Tribunal (LAT) and the Workplace Safety and Insurance Administrative Tribunal (WSIAT) have removed cost consequences. These tribunals accept the risks of frivolous disputes by removing costs and consequences for the losing party. The expressed motivation for doing so was to remove this so-called deterrent for those who would otherwise choose not to pursue legitimate cases. 

On its face, it looks as if this would promote access to justice by ensuring that everyone feels safe in pursuing administrative disputes. 

The most important takeaway is that neither party is obligated to pay costs. In other words, the wrongdoer who triggered the need for an action has no costs or consequences either. 

The Reality of Removing Costs Consequences

In my opinion, the removal of costs and consequences in the LAT and WSIAT creates a significant access to justice issue. The most common scenario can be summarized as follows: 

  1. The insured is denied coverage for reasons that would never justify a denial if heard by the tribunal. 
  2. The insured, who has, for lack of better words, an open and shut case on a denial, sees a lawyer. 
  3. The costs of using a lawyer for the hearing nears or exceeds the cost of disputing the denial of coverage. 

Since there is rarely a large lump sum payment after a LAT or WSIAT hearing, lawyers cannot take these matters on contingency. The insured has to pay legal fees.

If cost consequences existed in these types of tribunal hearings, clients would have the ability to recoup legal fees on legitimate disputes. Lawyers would have the added flexibility of retaining cost awards in their fee structure. 

By removing cost consequences, insurers are open to taking unreasonable positions, knowing that insureds are unlikely to obtain legal representation to dispute these positions.

Fixing the Access to Justice Issues

There is a fairly straightforward answer to this issue. Bring cost consequences back to the WSIAT and LAT. 

The only way to correct the described access to justice issue is to impose punitive measures on insurers taking unreasonable positions. Removing consequences and simply hoping that insurers won’t abuse the access to justice issue is a mistake. It is equivalent to asking any other company to deliberately lose money. It will never happen. 

About the Author

Justin is a fully bilingual lawyer and services clients in both French and English. He represents parties in insurance disputes, personal injury claims, and employment disputes at various levels of courts in Ontario. He was given early acceptance to the Common Law program at the University of Ottawa Law School. He obtained his Juris Doctorate in 2014 and was admitted to the Law Society of Upper Canada in 2016 after articling at Weaver Simmons in Sudbury, Ontario.

Education

University of Ottawa – Common Law

Speak To An Ottawa Injury Attorney Today!

Contact

Tel: (613) 505-5025
Fax: (613) 234-5852

Address

2571 Carling Ave #200
Ottawa, ON
K2B 7H7

Hours

Monday 9 a.m.–6 p.m.
Tuesday 9 a.m.–6 p.m.
Wednesday 9 a.m.–6 p.m.
Thursday 9 a.m.–6 p.m.
Friday 9 a.m.–6 p.m.
Saturday Closed
Sunday Closed