<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Costs &#8211; Rogers Partners LLP</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/tag/costs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 22:52:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.19</generator>
	<item>
		<title>The Toll of the Tough Road</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-toll-of-the-tough-road/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-toll-of-the-tough-road</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-toll-of-the-tough-road/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jan 2026 18:51:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7632</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Shannon Mascarenhas It is well known that in Ontario, the Superior Court of Justice holds broad discretion when awarding costs.[1] In exercising this discretion, the court may consider, in addition to the result of the hearing, a range of factors including offers to settle, the principles of indemnity, the amount an unsuccessful party could [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-toll-of-the-tough-road/">The Toll of the Tough Road</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/the-toll-of-the-tough-road/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Splitting the Bill: Apportioning Plaintiffs’ Costs Between Insurers</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/splitting-the-bill-apportioning-plaintiffs-costs-between-insurers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=splitting-the-bill-apportioning-plaintiffs-costs-between-insurers</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/splitting-the-bill-apportioning-plaintiffs-costs-between-insurers/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2025 22:59:05 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7594</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Sarah Sevier In the recent decision Stenton v. Estate of El Rifai, 2025 ONSC 6806, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the apportionment of plaintiffs’ costs between responding insurers following the settlement of a complex motor vehicle case, emphasizing that insurers’ conduct throughout the litigation can, and should, influence the allocation of costs. [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/splitting-the-bill-apportioning-plaintiffs-costs-between-insurers/">Splitting the Bill: Apportioning Plaintiffs’ Costs Between Insurers</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/splitting-the-bill-apportioning-plaintiffs-costs-between-insurers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inappropriate Behaviour by Litigants Can Have Adverse Cost Consequences</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/inappropriate-behaviour-by-litigants-can-have-adverse-cost-consequences/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=inappropriate-behaviour-by-litigants-can-have-adverse-cost-consequences</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/inappropriate-behaviour-by-litigants-can-have-adverse-cost-consequences/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 21:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7344</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Shane Marston In Affleck v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., 2025 ONCA 267, the Court of Appeal dismissed the self-represented plaintiff’s appeal from the trial Judge’s merits and costs decision. At trial, with reasons reported in Affleck v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., 2023 ONSC 1405, Justice J.T. Akbarali dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in defamation and [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/inappropriate-behaviour-by-litigants-can-have-adverse-cost-consequences/">Inappropriate Behaviour by Litigants Can Have Adverse Cost Consequences</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/inappropriate-behaviour-by-litigants-can-have-adverse-cost-consequences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Denial of Fraudulent Insurance Claim Upheld on Appeal</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/denial-of-fraudulent-insurance-claim-upheld-on-appeal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=denial-of-fraudulent-insurance-claim-upheld-on-appeal</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/denial-of-fraudulent-insurance-claim-upheld-on-appeal/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 22:46:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=7013</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jennifer Singh The Appeal in Legault v. TD General Insurance Company, 2024 ONCA 439, arose from a trial decision dismissing an action brought by Shelley Legault against TD Insurance Company (“TD”) relating to TD’s denial of Ms. Legault’s claim under her homeowner’s insurance policy following a fire at her home. The appeal was dismissed [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/denial-of-fraudulent-insurance-claim-upheld-on-appeal/">Denial of Fraudulent Insurance Claim Upheld on Appeal</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/denial-of-fraudulent-insurance-claim-upheld-on-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keeping a Party in an Action Can (and Sometimes Should) Lead to Paying Costs</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/keeping-a-party-in-an-action-can-and-sometimes-should-lead-to-paying-costs/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=keeping-a-party-in-an-action-can-and-sometimes-should-lead-to-paying-costs</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/keeping-a-party-in-an-action-can-and-sometimes-should-lead-to-paying-costs/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2024 20:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6999</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Jordan Petruska In Zaza v. Toronto, 2024 ONSC 2931, the defendant, Beasley Enterprises Limited was ordered to pay costs to the co-defendant, The City of Toronto for keeping them in the action and failing to conform to the defence and indemnity provisions of their licence agreement. Background&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; This action arose from a plaintiff injuring [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/keeping-a-party-in-an-action-can-and-sometimes-should-lead-to-paying-costs/">Keeping a Party in an Action Can (and Sometimes Should) Lead to Paying Costs</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/keeping-a-party-in-an-action-can-and-sometimes-should-lead-to-paying-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-115/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-115</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-115/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jul 2023 22:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6564</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Emmanuel Couture-Tremblay discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Co-operators General Insurance v. Doobay, 2023 ONSC 4075. Overview This costs hearing followed an action that involved two claims, one where the insurer claimed the return of benefits paid, plus damages, and one where the insured claimed [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-115/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-115/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alleged Impecuniosity Insufficient to Bar Costs Award</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/alleged-impecuniosity-insufficient-to-bar-costs-award/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=alleged-impecuniosity-insufficient-to-bar-costs-award</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/alleged-impecuniosity-insufficient-to-bar-costs-award/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2022 23:30:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=6334</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Meryl Rodrigues In a recent Costs Endorsement decision in Kesete v. Gaspar[i], the Ontario Superior Court addressed an argument that a plaintiff’s alleged impecuniosity should bar any – or anything more than nominal – costs being awarded to a successful defendant. The decision followed a 14-day jury trial, in which judgment was granted in [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/alleged-impecuniosity-insufficient-to-bar-costs-award/">Alleged Impecuniosity Insufficient to Bar Costs Award</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/alleged-impecuniosity-insufficient-to-bar-costs-award/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Damages, Nominal Damages, and Costs</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2022 20:26:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Damages]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5949</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Erin Crochetière The Ontario Court of Appeal heard the appeal in Pullano v. Hinder, 2022 ONCA 418 regarding an action for battery, and counter-claim in defamation. The plaintiff, Mr. Pullano, was punched in the chest by the defendant, Mr. Hinder. Mr. Hinder’ s employer was also named in the action, and was alleged to [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs/">No Damages, Nominal Damages, and Costs</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/no-damages-nominal-damages-and-costs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays with Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-54/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-54</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-54/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2021 11:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5288</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Annie Levanaj discussed the recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Skoblenick v Aviva General Insurance Company, 2021 ONSC 5340. This decision concerned motions brought by both parties for directions and costs regarding repeatedly adjourned examinations for discovery. History of the Litigation This action arose from a fire [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-54/">Fridays with Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-54/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fridays With Rogers Partners</title>
		<link>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-49/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=fridays-with-rogers-partners-49</link>
					<comments>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-49/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[rpllpadmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2021 09:29:40 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Friday Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Procedure]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.rogerspartners.com/?p=5160</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>At our weekly meeting, Chris MacDonald discussed a costs decision by the Superior Court in Gallo v 1884735 Ontario Inc., 2021 ONSC 4895. Facts The plaintiffs sought two million dollars in damages for demolition and construction costs of a partially constructed home that was left unprotected and damaged by weather. The plaintiffs were successful at trial [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-49/">Fridays With Rogers Partners</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.rogerspartners.com">Rogers Partners LLP</a>.</p>
]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>https://www.rogerspartners.com/fridays-with-rogers-partners-49/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
