Costs Immunity: Banishing the "Bane" of Costs from Public Interest Litigation

For litigants raising a matter of public interest, the possibility of facing an adverse award if unsuccessful may act as a deterrent to pursuing their legal claim. The author evaluates a form of order called costs immunity, referred to as (PCOs) in the U.K., as a means of removing the deterrent effect of on public interest litigants. Part I provides an overview of law in Canada. Part II reviews the various types of orders employed by Canadian courts to facilitate access to justice in public interest litigation. Part III explores the English experience with PCOs in public interest litigation, tracking the development of PCOs at common law. Part IV addresses the decision in Farlow v Hospital for Sick Children, the first case to articulate a test for immunity orders in Canada.La possibilite pour une partie a un litige qui souleve une question d'interet public d'etre condamnee a payer les depens de la partie adverse si elle n'a pas gain de cause peut etre un element dissuasif et la decourager d'aller de l'avant et de poursuivre sa reclamation. L'auteur evalue une forme d'ordonnance en matiere de depens appelee « ordonnance d'exemption de depens » (protective order) au R.-U., comme moyen de supprimer l'effet dissuasif des depens sur une partie qui fait valoir l'interet public. La partie I de l'article est un survol des lois sur les depens au Canada. La partie II passe en revue les divers types d'ordonnances en matiere de depens utilisees par les tribunaux canadiens pour faciliter l'acces a la justice dans les litiges d'interet public. La partie III examine l'experience, au R.-U., en matiere d'ordonnances d'exemption de depens dans les litiges d'interet public et suit le developpement de ces ordonnances en common law. La partie IV se penche sur l'arret Farlow c. Hospital for Sick Children, premier cas au Canada ou un critere pour determiner s'il y a lieu de prononcer une ordonnance d'exemption de depens a ete articule.IntroductionI. An overview of law in Canada1. The default rule: follow the event2. Traditional principlesa. Indemnificationb. Sanctioning misconductc. Encouraging settlement3. Costs as an instrument of policyH. Costs awards in public interest litigation1. Ex post facto orders2. Anticipatory orders3. Proposals for reformIII. The English approach: protective orders1. The Comer House decision2. Posf-Comer House jurisprudence3. A model for Canada?IV. Costs immunity in Canada1. Farlow v Hospital for Sick Children2. Reflecting on FarlowConclusionCosts are the bane of the public law lawyer's existence. So many great cases; so expensive and so little money to do them with.1IntroductionAccess to justice is widely recognized as one of the most fundamental challenges facing the Canadian legal system.2 For an increasing number of Canadians, the rising of litigation have become prohibitively expensive, putting the price of justice beyond their reach. Speaking at the David Hall Memorial Lecture, Lord Justice Brooke, formerly of the English Court of Appeal, identified three sources of financial hardship currently facing litigants. Although his remarks were directed at the English legal system, his concerns resonate throughout the Commonwealth:What are the obstacles to public access? Three are immediately obvious. The cost of the courts (in terms of high court fees); the cost of lawyers (in terms of even higher professional fees) and, above all, the risk of having to pay one's opponent's if one loses, and the uncertainty at the outset of litigation as to how large those will be.3The third obstacle described by Lord Justice Brooke-the prospect and attendant uncertainty of having to pay to one's opponent-is the subject of this paper. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.