IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  
Citation:  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS  
1549,  
2022 BCSC 1349  
Date: 20220809  
Docket: S147102  
Registry: Vancouver  
Between:  
And  
Douglas Sherwood and Rosslyn Sherwood  
Plaintiffs  
The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549 and Cinnabar Brown Holdings Ltd.  
Defendants  
And  
The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Third Party  
Before: Master Bilawich  
(As Registrar)  
Reasons for Decision  
Counsel for the Plaintiffs:  
D. Lucas  
Counsel for the Defendant and Third Party,  
The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549:  
A. Mujtabah  
The Defendant, Cinnabar Brown Holdings  
Ltd. by its representative:  
L. Sharp  
Place and Date of Hearing:  
Vancouver, B.C.  
March 7, 8, 2022,  
May 16-17, 2022  
Place and Date of Judgment:  
Vancouver, B.C.  
August 9, 2022  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 2  
Introduction  
[1]  
This is an assessment of party and party costs arising from the order after  
trial of Justice Gray made May 31, 2018. The costs provisions are as follows:  
a) The Sherwoods pay to the Strata Corporation the costs of this proceeding;  
and  
b) Cinnabar Brown pay to the Sherwoods the costs of this proceeding, including  
as a disbursement the costs which this order requires the Sherwoods to pay  
to the Strata Corporation.  
[2]  
The rationale for the award is set out at paras. 349-350 and 354-361 of  
Justice Gray’s reasons, indexed as 2018 BCSC 890:  
[349] Ordinarily, a successful party is entitled to an order that the  
unsuccessful party pays them costs. Such costs are usually assessed by the  
registrar under Appendix B to the Supreme Court Civil Rules. Matters of  
ordinary difficulty, such as this case, are assessed using Scale B.  
[350] The order the Sherwoods achieved against the BA Strata Corporation  
is essentially the order suggested by the BA Strata Corporation, and requires  
the Sharps to remove the As-Built Sharp Roof. The responsibility of the BA  
Strata Corporation to remove the roof arises only if the Sharps fail to do so in  
a timely way. The Sherwoods failed against the Sharps in their claim for  
negligence.  
[354] The BA Strata Corporation does not claim costs from Cinnabar in this  
proceeding. The BA Strata Corporation’s claim for those costs, on a full  
indemnity basis, is the subject of the Victoria Lawsuit, and must be dealt with  
there.  
[355] The BA Strata Corporation conceded that it was a necessary party to  
this lawsuit, and that once the Sherwoods started this proceeding, both the  
BA Strata Corporation and the Sharps were necessary parties.  
[356] The BA Strata Corporation argued that if the court made the orders  
proposed by the BA Strata Corporation, then the Sherwoods have succeeded  
against Cinnabar and have not succeeded against the BA Strata Corporation.  
[357] In these circumstances the BA Strata Corporation argued that  
Cinnabar should pay to the Sherwoods the costs which the Sherwoods would  
otherwise be required to pay to the BA Strata Corporation. Such an order is  
often referred to as a “Bullock” order. Essentially, it would provide that the  
Sherwoods should pay costs to the BA Strata Corporation because the order  
made is what the BA Strata Corporation proposed, but that Cinnabar should  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 3  
pay that amount to the Sherwoods because it is Cinnabar’s conduct which  
gave rise to the Sherwoods’ claim against the BA Strata Corporation.  
[358] The Bullock order is described in Rule 14-1(18) of the Supreme Court  
Civil Rules, as follows:  
Costs of one defendant payable by another  
(18) If the costs of one defendant against a plaintiff ought to be paid  
by another defendant, the court may order payment to be made by  
one defendant to the other directly, or may order the plaintiff to pay  
the costs of the successful defendant and allow the plaintiff to include  
those costs as a disbursement in the costs payable to the plaintiff by  
the unsuccessful defendant.  
[359] The BA Strata Corporation argued that, from the beginning of this  
action, the BA Strata Corporation has concurred with the order for Cinnabar  
to remove the unapproved alterations. The BA Strata Corporation submits a  
Bullock order which permits a successful plaintiff to add to the costs  
recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant the amount of costs which the  
plaintiff might otherwise be obliged to pay to the successful defendant.  
[360] I agree. In this case, the problems all arose from Cinnabar’s  
construction of the As-Built Sharp Roof, which does not comply with the  
Sharp February 2013 BP or the approvals by the BA Strata Corporation.  
[361] As a result, Cinnabar is required to pay the Sherwoods their costs of  
this lawsuit. The Sherwoods are required to pay the BA Strata Corporation its  
costs of this lawsuit, but the Sherwoods are entitled to include in their claim  
for costs from Cinnabar, as a disbursement, the costs payable by them to the  
BA Strata Corporation.  
[3]  
This assessment involves two bills of costs, one being the Strata  
Corporation’s bill as against the Sherwoods, involving a claim totalling $112,001.51  
and the second being the Sherwoods’ bill as against Cinnabar, involving a claim for  
an additional $89,473.17, for a grand total of $201,474.68.  
[4]  
The Sherwoods do not dispute any of the costs claimed against them by the  
Strata Corporation. Cinnabar opposes all costs that the Sherwoods claim against it,  
including the Strata Corporation’s costs claim against the Sherwoods.  
Background  
[5]  
The proceeding arises from a strata property dispute involving two units which  
comprise a duplex at the Beach Acres Resort in Parksville, B.C. The Sherwoods  
own one side (Strata Lot 13), which they purchased in 1996. Cinnabar owns the  
other side (Strata Lot 14), which was purchased in 1997. Cinnabar is a holding  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 4  
company of Cecil and Li Sharp. These two units share a common wall. Each unit  
originally had about 506 square feet of living space, with a sliding glass door facing  
the beach.  
[6]  
Initially both owners shared a desire to add about 34 square feet of living  
space to their respective units by enclosing certain patio space which is limited  
common property. To accomplish this, a renovation of the roof over both units was  
necessary. The proposed renovation required approval by a resolution passed by  
75% of the strata owners as well as a building permit from the City of Parksville.  
[7]  
The Sharps and Sherwoods submitted a joint application to strata council,  
which was approved by 75% of the owners. There was a dispute at trial about what  
roof design had been approved at that time. Justice Gray found that a two-slope”  
design had been approved.  
[8]  
The Sharps started renovation of the Cinnabar unit first, in the course of  
which they chose to deviate from the approved roof design in a way that raised  
portions of the roof by about four inches and which resulted in their unit having a  
“one-slope” roof. This resulted Cinnabar’s unit having a higher (8 foot) ceiling in the  
kitchen area, amongst other changes. The Sharps made the change without having  
arranged for new building plans and without obtaining approval from strata council,  
strata owners or City of Parksville. The Sherwoods objected to the change. The City  
of Parksville issued a stop work order in respect to the Cinnabar unit.  
[9]  
The Sherwoods were not able to build the roof design that had been  
approved over their unit and they were concerned about overall structural integrity of  
the duplex. They demanded that the non-compliant roof be removed and the original  
design complied with.  
[10] The Sharps initially took the position that a one-sloperoof design is what  
was originally approved. The Sherwoods disagreed. At subsequent meetings of  
strata council, it declined to approve the Sharpsmodified design. The City of  
Parksville later issued a second stop work order. Both owners retained legal counsel  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 5  
and were actively advocating opposite resolutions to the dispute. The Strata  
Corporation retained legal counsel, Mr. Tryon of Crease Harman LLP in Victoria, to  
assist it.  
[11] Subsequent efforts to resolve the dispute were not successful, with both  
owners alleging the Strata Corporation was treating them in a significantly unfair  
manner. The Strata Corporation arranged for an owners’ resolution to be passed,  
authorizing it to pursue legal action. As it turned out, the Sherwoods were first to  
start proceedings. On September 15, 2014, they started this proceeding by filing a  
petition to the court in the Vancouver registry. It appears they chose to file in  
Vancouver because they reside in North Vancouver and their counsel’s office is in  
Vancouver. Initially Cinnabar was not named as a respondent, but it was later added  
at the Strata Corporation’s urging.  
[12] On July 2, 2015, the Strata Corporation started Victoria registry action S-  
152530 (the “Victoria Action”) against Cinnabar. In it, the Strata Corporation claims  
Cinnabar contravened its bylaws and is liable for fines and the Strata Corporation’s  
actual legal costs, including of this proceeding.  
[13] The Vancouver petition was heard by Justice Maisonville on October 1-2 and  
December 2-3, 2015. On February 24, 2016, she issued a memorandum to counsel  
directing that the petition be converted into an action and referred to the trial list. She  
also set deadlines for the parties to file pleadings.  
[14] The Sherwoods sought an order that the Strata Corporation, at its expense,  
remove Cinnabar’s new roof (the “As-Built Roof”), or alternately that Cinnabar be  
ordered to do so. They argued that the Strata Corporation had treated them in a  
significantly unfair manner and claimed remedies under section 164 of the Strata  
Property Act (“SPA”). They also claimed in negligence against Cinnabar and sought  
damages.  
[15] Cinnabar alleged the Strata Corporation was treating it in a significantly unfair  
manner and also sought a remedy under section 164 of the SPA. It denied that it  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 6  
was liable to the Sherwoods in negligence. It filed a third party notice against the  
Strata Corporation.  
[16] The Strata Corporation’s position was that the appropriate order was for  
Cinnabar to remove the As-Built Roof and if it failed to do that within an appropriate  
time, only then it should it be required to do so. It denied it was treating either owner  
in a significantly unfair manner.  
[17] A trial lasting 18 days was held before Justice Gray in June and July, 2017.  
On May 31, 22018, she issued reasons, indexed as Sherwood v. The Owners,  
Strata Plan VIS 1549, 2018 BCSC 890. She concluded that the As-Built Roof had  
not been built in accordance with the approved design or the building permit and had  
to be removed. She ordered that:  
a) The Sherwoods’ “significant unfairnessclaim against the Strata  
Corporation was dismissed;  
b) Cinnabar’s “significant unfairnessclaim against the Strata Corporation  
was dismissed;  
c) The Sherwoodsnegligence claim against Cinnabar was dismissed; and  
d) If the parties were not able to make an agreement within 60 days which  
would result in the removal of the As-Built Roof and replace it with a new  
“same” roof over both units, then the Strata Corporation was ordered to  
remove the As-Built Roof and replace it with a roof similar to the roof  
which existed above strata lot 14 before the As-Built Roof was built,  
including making an application for a building permit for the work within 90  
days of the date of the order and completing the work within 90 days of  
receiving the building permit.  
[18] Justice Gray retired. Numerous post-trial applications were made to Chief  
Justice Hinkson. One was Cinnabar’s application to vary Justice Gray’s costs order.  
On November 29, 2018, he issued reasons, indexed as Sherwood v. The Owners,  
Strata Plan VIS 1549, 2018 BCSC 2105. He allowed Cinnabar to make arguments  
regarding certain offers to settle Ms. Sharp had made which were not addressed  
before Justice Gray. He ultimately concluded that Cinnabar’s offers to settle did not  
comply with the requirements of Rule 9-1 and that Justice Gray’s costs order would  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 7  
not have been affected by them. He was satisfied that her order expressed her  
manifest intention and dismissed Cinnabar’s application.  
[19] On October 7, 2019, Chief Justice Hinkson issued reasons, indexed as  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549, 2019 BCSC 1714, regarding  
competing applications by Cinnabar and the Strata Corporation to vary Justice  
Gray’s order. He granted a consent order adding a clause granting the parties liberty  
to apply for any orders necessary to permit the work to be completed as soon as  
possible before another judge. He dismissed Cinnabar’s application to amend the  
order to provide that the Strata Corporation approve the As-Built Roof and also  
dismissed other variations sought by the Strata Corporation.  
[20] On January 24, 2020, Chief Justice Hinkson dismissed Cinnabar’s application  
for a stay of execution of Justice Gray’s costs order.  
[21] On March 18, 2021, Chief Justice Hinkson dismissed a further application by  
Cinnabar to set aside a portion of Justice Gray’s order and for declarations that the  
Strata Corporation had acted in a significantly unfair manner towards Cinnabar, a  
declaration that the As-Built Roof meets the criteria of a “roof similar to the Original  
Roof” and that the Strata Corporation approve the As-Built Roof, and an order that  
order awarding the Sherwoods costs against Cinnabar be set aside.  
[22] There were also proceedings taken before the court of appeal. It is not  
necessary to describe those here.  
[23] There were also numerous applications and appearances relating to the  
assessment of costs, including numerous pre-hearing conferences and attempts to  
schedule the assessment and numerous applications by Cinnabar to adjourn it.  
The Assessment Hearing  
[24] The assessment was set for 2 days but ended requiring 3.5 days to complete.  
Direct evidence of all parties was tendered via affidavits filed and exchanged in  
advance of the hearing.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 8  
[25] The Strata Corporation tendered a lengthy affidavit of justification from Mr.  
Tryon, its original counsel. He retired from practice in or about November 2019.  
Initially, Mr. Hallsor and subsequently Mr. Mujtaba, both with Crease Harman LLP,  
assumed conduct. Mr. Mujtaba also tendered affidavits of justification for periods  
after Mr. Tryon’s departure. The Sherwoods tendered a lengthy affidavit of  
justification from Mr. Lucas, who has been their counsel throughout this proceeding.  
Deponents were cross-examined by Ms. Sharp during the hearing. Cinnabar  
tendered numerous affidavits of Ms. Sharp in opposition. She was briefly cross-  
examined by Mr. Mujtaba.  
Applicable Law Assessment Generally  
[26] Rule 14-1 deals with assessment of costs. Sub-section (1) addresses how  
costs are assessed generally:  
How costs assessed generally  
(1) If costs are payable to a party under these Supreme Court Civil Rules or  
by order, those costs must be assessed as party and party costs in  
accordance with Appendix B …  
[27] Sub-section (2) sets out the test for fees under Appendix “B”:  
Assessment of party and party costs  
(2) On an assessment of party and party costs under Appendix B, a registrar  
must  
(a) allow those fees under Appendix B that were proper or reasonably  
necessary to conduct the proceeding, and  
(b) consider Rule 1-3 and any case plan order.  
[28] Sub-section (5) addresses the test for disbursements:  
Disbursements  
(5) When assessing costs under subrule (2) or (3) of this rule, a registrar  
must  
(a) determine which disbursements have been necessarily or properly  
incurred in the conduct of the proceeding, and  
(b) allow a reasonable amount for those disbursements.  
[29] Rule 1-3 is as follows:  
Object  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 9  
(1) The object of these Supreme Court Civil Rules is to secure the just,  
speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.  
Proportionality  
(2) Securing the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of a proceeding  
on its merits includes, so far as is practicable, conducting the proceeding in  
ways that are proportionate to  
(a) the amount involved in the proceeding,  
(b) the importance of the issues in dispute, and  
(c) the complexity of the proceeding.  
[30] There is a summary of applicable principles for assessment of costs in CLE-  
BC’s loose-leaf publication, Practice Before the Registrar, General Principles of  
Costs Assessment, at para. 2.25. Some relevant points for purposes of this  
assessment include:  
a) Whether fees claimed or disbursements claimed should be allowed is  
determined objectively.  
b) A step is necessaryif it was indispensable to the conduct of the proceeding.  
It is “proper” if it was not necessary but was nonetheless reasonably taken or  
incurred for the purpose of the proceeding.  
c) If fees or disbursements were incurred or increased through extravagance,  
negligence, mistake or by reason of payment of unjustified charges or  
expenses, they should be disallowed.  
d) The registrar has a duty to consider counsel’s obligation to prepare a client’s  
case thoroughly and with care, and not to second-guess counsel’s views of  
what steps or expenses were required.  
e) Whether a disbursement was necessarily and properly incurred must be  
assessed based on the circumstances existing at that time.  
f) One way that reasonableness can be assessed is in relation to the amount at  
stake in the proceeding in which costs are claimed.  
[31] In Carreiro v. Smith, 2015 BCSC 2379 at paras. 13-15, Registrar Nielsen  
summarized the general principles as follows:  
13 Whether work for which fees are claimed should be allowed must be  
determined objectively. A step was necessary if it was indispensable to the  
conduct of the proceeding. A step was proper if it was not necessary, but was  
nevertheless reasonably taken or incurred for the purpose of the proceeding.  
In fixing the number of units for items where a minimum and a maximum  
number of units is allowed, the Registrar is to allow the minimum amount of  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 10  
units for matters upon which little time should ordinarily have been spent; and  
the maximum amount of units for matters upon which a great deal of time  
should ordinarily have been spent.  
14 The assessment of discretionary tariff items is an objective exercise. In  
determining the proper number of units to award in respect of each item, the  
Registrar is to compare the case that is before him or her with all other cases  
that come before the court, and decide where it fits within the spectrum.  
Certain objective factors are to be considered, such as whether the litigation  
was simple or straightforward, if the litigation involved numerous parties,  
extensive legal issues, numerous experts, large sums of money, or any other  
factors which may have impacted upon the case's difficulty.  
15 Registrars are to have regard to the particular circumstances of the  
proceeding in which costs are claimed when deciding how many units within  
the prescribed range should be allowed.  
[32] In Wheeldon v. Magee, 2010 BCSC 491 at para. 21, Master Bouck  
commented regarding assessment of tariff items:  
21 With respect to the tariff items, where the minimum number of units are  
provided for an item, the assessing officer must consider this question: "How  
much time, on a scale of 1 to X (where X is the maximum units the tariff  
provides) should a reasonably competent lawyer have spent on the work for  
which the costs are claimed?": See Practice Before the Registrar (CLE) at p.  
2-22.  
[33] In Dhillon v. Bowering, 2013 BCSC 1178 at paras. 15-16, Registrar Sainty  
summarized the process of assessing disbursements:  
15 The test for determining the recoverability of a disbursement is set out  
in Van Daele v. Van Daele (1983), 56 B.C.L.R. 178 (C.A.), where Mr. Justice  
Macfarlane said at paragraph 11:  
The proper test, it seems to me, from a number of authorities referred  
to us this morning is whether at the time the disbursement or expense  
was incurred, it was a proper disbursement in the sense of not being  
extravagant, negligent, mistaken, or a result of excessive caution or  
excessive zeal, judged by the situation at the time when the  
disbursement or expense was incurred.  
16 In deciding these issues, a registrar has a wide discretion. That discretion  
was explained in Bell v. Fantini (1981), 32 B.C.L.R. 322 (S.C.), at paragraphs  
23 and 24, in the following manner:  
I consider that Rule 57(4) entitles the registrar to exercise a wide  
discretion to disallow disbursements in whole or in part where the  
disbursements appear to him to have been incurred or increased  
through extravagance, negligence, or mistake, or by payment of  
unjustified charges or expenses. The registrar must consider all of the  
circumstances of each case and determine whether the  
disbursements were reasonably incurred and were justified. He must  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
be careful to balance his duty to disallow expenses incurred due to  
Page 11  
negligence or mistake, or which are extravagant, with his duty to  
recognize that a carefully prepared case requires that counsel use  
care in the choice of expert witnesses and examine all sources of  
information and possible evidence which may be of advantage to his  
client.  
The registrar is not bound to accept an affidavit of counsel that in  
counsel's opinion the employment of the expert or the incurring of the  
expense was justified or that it was necessary for the attainment of  
justice when the registrar is considering allowing or disallowing the  
disbursement under this rule. He should give careful consideration to  
any such affidavit and he must weigh what is deposed to against any  
affidavit that deposes to the opposite effect. His duty under the rule is  
to determine whether the expense is a reasonable and justifiable  
expense which should be borne by the unsuccessful litigant.  
[34] And at para. 23 of her reasons, Registrar Sainty said the following regarding  
proportionality:  
23 I must also consider "proportionality" in making my decision. But  
proportionality is, in my view, a two-way street. The amount of money at issue  
in an action (large or small) may have a bearing on both the necessity and  
propriety of a disbursement and whether it is reasonable in the  
circumstances. In my view (and I agree with Ms. Dewar's submissions on  
this point), proportionality (which I must consider in assessing costs per Rule  
14-1(2)(b)) refers to the significance of the claim; either small or large.  
Analysis  
[35] Ms. Sharp made a preliminary objection that the Strata Corporation had not  
filed its own appointment to assess its bill of costs and that she had not received the  
amended version of the bill of costs of either the Sherwoods or Strata Corporation a  
full 30 days prior to the hearing of the assessment. She was referring to Registrar  
Nielsen’s pre-hearing conference order of October 13, 2020, which included a  
direction that materials to be referred to at a subsequent assessment be provided to  
the opposing party 30 days in advance of the scheduled assessment, including bills  
of costs, affidavits of justification, etc.  
[36] The Strata Corporation and Sherwoods tendered affidavit evidence  
establishing they had provided Ms. Sharp unfiled copies of their amended bills of  
costs. Ms. Sharp acknowledged this but argued this was deficient because they had  
not been filed with the court.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 12  
[37] The Sherwoods filed the original appointment to assess costs on April 16,  
2019. It attaches their initial bill of costs but did not include the Strata Corporation’s  
original bill. The Strata Corporation opted not to file a separate appointment but  
instead to “piggy-back” assessment of its bill on the Sherwoods’ appointment. This  
approach makes practical sense considering that Justice Gray’s order provides that  
the costs that the Sherwoods have to pay the Strata Corporation can be claimed as  
a disbursement on the Sherwoods’ bill against Cinnabar.  
[38] There have been numerous pre-hearing conferences held regarding  
assessment of costs, all of which have proceeded on the basis that the two bills are  
being assessed together. Numerous pre-hearing orders have been made, by as  
many as five registrars / masters, it appears, which address a variety of common  
pre-hearing issues and arrangements. This includes exchange of affidavits of  
justification and other materials for the hearing, leave to provide amended bills, and  
the like. The assessment has repeatedly been schedule as a joint hearing and Ms.  
Sharp has repeatedly applied to adjourn it. A recent example of that was in late  
January 2022 before Master Scarth, based on undocumented health reasons. More  
than one pre-hearing conference order grants leave for the Strata Corporation and  
Sherwoods to provide amended bills of costs to Cinnabar. This was done so they  
could add costs claims arising from post-trial proceedings. It can come as no  
surprise to Cinnabar and Ms. Sharp that both amended bills were being assessed. I  
am satisfied that Cinnabar has had reasonable notice of amended bills and the  
materials relied on at the hearing. Ms. Sharp’s concerns involve technical form  
rather than procedural substance. I dismiss her preliminary objections.  
[39] A broad argument Ms. Sharp made repeatedly in opposition to almost all of  
the costs claims was based on proportionality. She argues that any level of costs  
awarded is disproportionate because the issues that gave rise to this litigation, which  
she characterizes as a four-inch increase in the height of the roof over Cinnabar’s  
unit, was minor and did not harm anyone. She suggests it is the Sharps who have  
suffered harm, through their unit being left uninhabitable and unrentable for many  
years and through the legal costs they have incurred to defend this proceeding. She  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 13  
argues that the relief the Sherwoods sought against Cinnabar was minor and  
dismissed at trial and that the relief sought by the Strata Corporation was minor and  
the order obtained was ineffective and unenforceable, at least in its initial form. She  
says all tariff items and disbursements claimed should either be disallowed or  
alternatively allowed at the minimum level possible.  
[40] As noted, Cinnabar has made several applications to vary or stay Justice  
Gray’s costs order. Those applications have all been dismissed. Cinnabar’s efforts  
are addressed by the court of appeal in Sherwood v. Cinnabar Brown Holdings Ltd.,  
2021 BCCA 449 at paras. 47-51:  
47 Chief Justice Hinkson declined to vary costs ordered against Cinnabar at  
trial, on the basis that he already addressed the matter of costs in an earlier  
order made November 29, 2018, and Cinnabar was attempting to re-argue  
the application it lost (at para. 30).  
48 Cinnabar's submissions on this issue are to the effect that although it had  
previously sought to vary the costs award at trial, it was advancing a new  
argument in support of this position, so Hinkson C.J.S.C. erred in dismissing  
its application. The respondents on appeal submit that Cinnabar seeks to  
advance new costs arguments that it did not even advance on its latest  
appearance before Hinkson C.J.S.C.  
49 Cinnabar's position seems not to appreciate the requirement for a litigant  
to bring all available arguments and evidence it wishes to advance to the  
original hearing of an issue. If a litigant fails to do so, the general rule is that it  
is not permitted to come back another time to revisit the issue.  
50 The concept of issue estoppel was explained by the Supreme Court of  
Canada in Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44, and held at  
paras. 18, 24:  
18 The law rightly seeks a finality to litigation. To advance that  
objective, it requires litigants to put their best foot forward to establish  
the truth of their allegations when first called upon to do so. A litigant,  
to use the vernacular, is only entitled to one bite at the cherry. ... An  
issue, once decided, should not generally be re-litigated to the benefit  
of the losing party and the harassment of the winner. A person should  
only be vexed once in the same cause. Duplicative litigation, potential  
inconsistent results, undue costs, and inconclusive proceedings are to  
be avoided.  
...  
24 ... The question out of which the estoppel is said to arise must  
have been "fundamental to the decision arrived at" in the earlier  
proceeding. In other words, as discussed below, the estoppel extends  
to the material facts and the conclusions of law or of mixed fact and  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
law ("the questions") that were necessarily (even if not explicitly)  
Page 14  
determined in the earlier proceedings.  
[Emphasis added.]  
51 I am not persuaded that the judge erred in finding that Cinnabar was  
seeking to re-litigate the costs issue, which had previously been decided  
against it.  
[41] Asking the registrar to disallow all costs based on proportionality  
considerations is simply another attempt to re-litigate costs issues already  
addressed by Justice Gray, Chief Justice Hinkson more than once and by the court  
of appeal, and is not appropriate. I do agree, however, that it is appropriate to  
consider proportionality when assessing whether individual tariff and disbursement  
claims are reasonable. In this case Ms. Sharp has objected to virtually every tariff  
item and disbursement claimed in both bills. I will address those issues below.  
[42] I do not agree with Cinnabar’s characterization of the claims against it as  
minor is fair. The primary relief sought in this proceeding was orders to compel  
removal of Cinnabar’s As-Built Roof and certain other aspects of the renovation and  
replacement of those with a roof design that conforms with what was originally  
approved. Justice Gray did not attach a dollar value to that relief. Further, both  
Cinnabar and Sherwoods alleged the Strata Corporation was treating them in a  
significantly unfair manner, for diametrically opposite reasons. These proceedings  
were necessary to resolve those issues. Cinnabar has been self-represented for a  
significant portion of this proceeding. Ms. Sharp’s repeated attempts to re-litigate  
issues has clearly contributed to this becoming a substantially more complicated and  
time-consuming process than necessary.  
[43] I turn now to the bills.  
Strata Corporation’s Bill As Against the Sherwoods  
[44] In approaching assessment of this bill, it is important to keep in mind that it  
involves the Strata Corporation’s claim for costs against the Sherwoods, not against  
Cinnabar. The Strata Corporation is pursuing a separate claim for full indemnity  
costs against Cinnabar in the Victoria Action. I emphasize this aspect because it  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 15  
appears the Strata Corporation’s bill includes several items which are appropriately  
characterized as “Cinnabar v. Strata Corporationissues.  
[45] I deal first with the tariff items claimed.  
Item 1 10 Units Claimed  
[46] Justice Gray described the pre-proceeding history in her reasons in detail. I  
will not repeat that here. The Strata Corporation retained Mr. Tryon in summer 2013.  
At the time, the Sherwoods and Sharps / Cinnabar were both threatening legal  
proceedings against the Strata Corporation. Mr. Tryon was senior, experienced  
strata law and strata litigation counsel. His office is in Victoria.  
[47] Both owners were alleging unfair treatment and each was demanding the  
Strata Corporation take diametrically opposite courses of action to address this.  
Between the time Mr. Tryon was retained and September 15, 2014 when the  
Sherwoods filed their petition, he had extensive dealings with counsel for both  
owners and internally, he was dealing with the strata manager and several council  
members. Mr. Tryon reviewed all communications between the Strata Corporation  
and the two owners to ensure there were no issues of unfairness. He had frequent  
communications with council members to ensure the Strata Corporation was  
meeting its duties under the SPA. He prepared a detailed opinion letter explaining  
the Strata Corporation’s legal position on each of the issues raised.  
[48] In September 2013, Mr. Tryon sent a letter to both owners asserting that  
Cinnabar had breached the strata’s bylaws by altering the roof design without  
authorization.  
[49] There were several strata council meetings at which resolutions were passed.  
He was involved in all communications relating to those. He was copied on email  
correspondence with council members. An annual general meeting was held to  
authorize the Strata Corporation to sue and to give strata council limited settlement  
authority. It was the Strata Corporation’s original intention to file its own petition,  
however the Sherwoods were first to do so.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 16  
[50] Ms. Sharp objected to the number of units claimed. In her Affidavit #18 she  
says pre-commencement steps were unnecessary or ought to have required minimal  
time. She complains that some steps were taken based on the wrong version of the  
strata bylaws, but she failed to provide evidence to help quantify that. She also  
argues the broader proceeding was unnecessary and the remedy obtained was  
ineffective and unenforceable.  
[51] On an assessment of costs, it is not appropriate for the registrar to delve into  
the underlying merits of the dispute. Those were decided by Justice Gray her  
findings are binding. I accept that there was extensive correspondence,  
conferences, instructions, investigations and negotiations in the period leading up to  
the start of this proceeding, involving both the Sherwoods and the Sharps / Cinnabar  
due to the nature of the dispute. I award 10 units for this item.  
Item 2 30 Units Claimed  
[52] Mr. Tryon testified that his preparation of the Strata Corporation’s petition  
response and supporting affidavits required extensive communications with council  
members. He prepared 5 affidavits to respond to the extensive allegations made by  
the Sherwoods and the Sharps and to provide the history of the matter.  
[53] The petition was vigorously contested and initially scheduled for a 2-day  
hearing in June 2015 in Vancouver. Mr. Tryon travelled to Vancouver for that  
hearing, but there was not judge available. The hearing was rescheduled to October  
1-2, 2015. That hearing went ahead before Justice Maisonville and was continued  
on December 2-3, 2015. She transferred the matter to the trial list and setting a  
schedule for exchange of pleadings. The parties attended before her one further  
time to clarify the terms of her order.  
[54] Around this time, Cinnabar began self-representing, primarily via Ms. Sharp.  
[55] On June 21, 2016, the Sherwoods filed their notice of civil claim (8 pages).  
The Strata Corporation filed a response to civil claim (10 pages) and Cinnabar filed a  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 17  
response to civil claim (17 pages) and a third party notice against the Strata  
Corporation. Cinnabar filed a notice of fast-track action pursuant to Rule 15-1.  
[56] On October 17, 2016, all parties attended a case planning conference, in  
which orders were made for pre-trial timelines and the action was removed from the  
fast-track. The time estimate for trial was originally 10 days.  
[57] The period leading up to trial was occupied by multiple applications relating to  
production of documents. This included an application by the Sherwoods on May 2,  
2017 and three by Cinnabar on May 4, 9 and 24, 2017. To the extent that most of  
the Cinnabar applications focused on Cinnabar v. Strata Corporation issues, they  
appear to more properly be the focus of the Victoria Action.  
[58] The trial started on June 5, 2017. It ended up requiring 18 days to complete.  
Mr. Tryon suggests the trial was longer than necessary because Cinnabar was  
represented by Ms. Sharp at trial.  
[59] Ms. Sharp raises a variety of issues, including alleging that 2 of the 5  
affidavits that the Strata Corporation tendered contained false statements. She  
suggests that time spent preparing them was wasted or caused the petition to be  
transferred to the trial list inappropriately. She says the applications of May 4, May 9  
and May 24, 2017 would not have been necessary if the Strata Corporation had  
complied with its document production obligations. She suggests Cinnabar’s  
successful application of May 24, 2017 for the Strata Corporation to provide an  
affidavit verifying its list of documents shows that time spent on document  
applications could have avoided. I do not agree one can draw that conclusion and  
costs of the various applications are addressed under a different tariff item.  
[60] Ms. Sharp argues the Strata Corporation sided with and assisted the  
Sherwoods throughout the litigation. It is fair to say that the Strata Corporation’s  
positions were more closely aligned with those of the Sherwoods regarding the roof  
replacement issue. There is nothing untoward about that. They were at odds  
regarding the Sherwoods’ allegation of unfairness, which was dismissed.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 18  
[61] Ms. Sharp also argues that because the Strata Corporation mentioned the  
Negligence Act in its response to civil claim, this caused the Sherwoods to amend  
their notice of civil claim to add a claim in negligence against Cinnabar, which was  
ultimately dismissed by Justice Gray. Ms. Sharp’s argument is based on speculation.  
She did not question Mr. Lucas about this point and she did not tender evidence  
which could assist in quantifying this concern.  
[62] Ms. Sharp also takes issue with Mr. Tryon’s assertion that she caused the  
trial to be prolonged. She says this occurred due to false and irrelevant allegations  
that the Strata Corporation made against her and Cinnabar. Ms. Sharp complained  
that the affidavit deponent whose evidence she says was false was not called by the  
Strata Corporation at trial. If so, it is not clear how the trial could have been  
prolonged by evidence that was not tendered.  
[63] I am satisfied that there was extensive correspondence, conferences,  
instructions, investigations and negotiations in the period after the start of the  
proceeding to the completion of the trial. I award 25 units for this item.  
Item 3 7.5 Units Claimed  
[64] Justice Gray pronounced the order after trial on May 31, 2018. Thereafter,  
there were extensive communications between the parties regarding variation and  
enforcement of Justice Gray’s order.  
[65] Ms. Sharp argues that she was misled into signing the formal order after trial.  
She had not made costs submissions before Justice Gray. She had made several  
settlement offers before trial and wished to seek costs based on those. She alleges  
opposing counsel entered the order after trial despite her then legal counsel’s  
request not to do so. This appears to be a re-argument of points made in Cinnabar’s  
applications to vary Justice Gray’s costs award. Chief Justice Hinkson did permit  
Cinnabar to make submissions based on the settlement offers Ms. Sharp refers to,  
but he went on to dismiss Cinnabar’s application. Justice Gray’s original costs order  
remained unchanged.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 19  
[66] I am satisfied there was substantial correspondence, conferences,  
instructions, investigations and negotiations after the trial or hearing to enforce the  
final order. I award 5 units for this item.  
Item 7 10 Units Claimed  
[67] The Strata Corporation filed a petition response of 14 pages on March 20,  
2015 and counsel prepared five affidavits sworn by various members of strata  
council and the property manager. The process also included preparing a response  
to the amended petition and responding affidavits. He later prepared a response to  
civil claim.  
[68] Ms. Sharp argues that any time spent on this item was unreasonable and  
unnecessary and again invites me to delve into the underlying merits of issues that  
were determined at trial.  
[69] I am satisfied the process for defending both the petition and the notice of civil  
claim was substantial and warrants an award of 8 units.  
Item 8 10 Units Claimed  
[70] On July 25, 2016, Mr. Tryon filed a response to Cinnabar’s third party notice  
against Strata Corporation.  
[71] Ms. Sharp argues that Justice Gray did not order costs relating to the third-  
party proceedings.  
[72] In my view, this item primarily relates to the Strata Corporation’s dispute with  
Cinnabar, not with the Sherwoods. It is more appropriately addressed in the Victoria  
Action and as such I award no units for this item.  
Item 10 10 Units Claimed  
[73] Mr. Tryon testified that the last amended list of documents of Cinnabar was  
546 documents and the last amended list of documents of the Sherwoods was 126  
documents. He suggests the time required to pursue this level of discovery from two  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 20  
different parties justifies an award of maximum units allowed for up to 999  
documents.  
[74] Ms. Sharp argues Mr. Tryon did not provide evidence that the units claimed  
were appropriate for the nature and number of documents. She says he is an  
experienced lawyer and should have known the only documents which were  
necessary and of any importance where the proposal for the renovation and the  
resolution in the minutes of the 2012 AGM approving it. She says he should not  
have wasted time reviewing every document.  
[75] This item is assessed based in part on the number of documents that were  
produced in the course of discovery of documents. It is not appropriate for the  
registrar to undertake a detailed assessment of the relative usefulness individual  
documents listed. Ms. Sharp did not direct me to a significant volume of specific  
documents which were obviously irrelevant.  
[76] I am satisfied that there was substantial effort involved in obtaining discovery  
and inspection of documents. I award 8 units for this item.  
Item 11 10 Units Claimed  
[77] Mr. Tryon testified that by the time trial commenced, he had served on behalf  
of the Strata Corporation a fourth amended list of documents with 270 documents.  
This was mainly because of numerous applications and demands by the other  
parties for document disclosure. This included one application by the Sherwoods  
and three by Cinnabar, including an application for an affidavit verifying the Strata  
Corporation’s list of documents.  
[78] Ms. Sharp objects to any units being awarded under this item based on the  
Strata Corporation having failed to disclose all necessary documents. Cinnabar had  
to apply for an affidavit verifying the Strata Corporation’s list of documents. I do not  
consider that the outcome of that particular application has any particular bearing on  
my assessment of this item.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 21  
[79] I am satisfied there was significant effort involved in giving discovery and  
inspection of documents. To the extent that applications were involved, those will be  
addressed under a different tariff item. I award 5 units for this item.  
Item 14 2.5 Units Claimed  
[80] Mr. Tryon says he prepared and served three notices to admit on the  
Sherwood’s and Cinnabar, including March 9, March 30 and July 31, 2017. The  
March 9, 2017 notice to admit sought admission of authenticity of 19 documents.  
The March 30, 2017 notice sought admission of authenticity of 19 documents and  
appears to duplicate the earlier notice. The July 31, 2017 notice sought admission of  
authenticity of 4 documents.  
[81] Ms. Sharp opposes any units being awarded under this item. She argues the  
Strata Corporation provided no evidence that counsel spent time on the notice to  
admit. She suggests the documents referred to in the notices to admit were  
unnecessary and irrelevant to the issues in dispute.  
[82] I am not persuaded that the documents listed in the notices to admit were  
unnecessary and irrelevant. I award 2 units for this item.  
Item 15 5 units Claimed  
[83] Cinnabar served the Strata Corporation with a notice to admit dated  
September 8, 2016. It has 4 points of law and 109 factual paragraphs, single spaced  
and 10 pages in length. The Strata Corporation responded on September 22, 2016.  
The Strata Corporation seeks maximum units due to the time required for it to  
respond. A copy of Cinnabar’s notice to admit was tendered, but I was not provided  
a copy of the Strata Corporation’s reply to it. This makes it difficult to assess the  
amount of time spent preparing the reply.  
[84] Ms. Sharp opposes the units claimed under this item. She suggests no  
evidence was provided regarding the Strata Corporation’s reply to the notice to  
admit. In any event, she suggests that if the Strata Corporation had admitted the  
matters set out in the notice to admit, it would have led to a time savings at trial.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 22  
[85] Where a party has unreasonably refused to admit facts, that is an issue that  
can be addressed in costs. That is normally addressed with the trial judge when  
costs are addressed. Ms. Sharp did not draw my attention to any finding to that  
effect. Not having the Strata Corporation’s response available, I will assume it was  
brief and involved bare denials. I allow 3 units, based on the length and complexity  
of the notice to admit.  
Item 18 7.5 Units Claimed  
[86] Mr. Tryon testified that the Strata Corporation interviewed and subpoenaed  
five witnesses. Four of those five testified at trial. Copies of the subpoenas were  
tendered in evidence.  
[87] Ms. Sharp argues that time spent on the five witnesses was not appropriate  
or necessary.  
[88] It is not appropriate for me to wade into the merits of the evidence given by  
individual witnesses absent evidence indicating their evidence was clearly irrelevant.  
I am satisfied there was substantial effort involved in contacting, interviewing and  
issuing subpoenas to the five witnesses. I award 7.5 units for this item.  
Item 19 10.5 Units Claimed  
[89] This includes preparing for an examination of Ms. Sharp by the Strata  
Corporation for a total of 1.5 days and an examination of the Strata Corporation’s  
representative by Cinnabar for 1.5 days.  
[90] Mr. Tryon also referred to the discoveries of Mr. and Ms. Sherwood  
conducted by Cinnabar for a full day each. The Strata Corporation did not actually  
claim units relating to preparing for the latter two discoveries. I agree it would not be  
appropriate to allow units for preparation by to a party who was merely observing the  
discovery.  
[91] Ms. Sharp opposes this item. She suggests the time spent on her discovery  
was not necessary. She says she admitted at the outset that the As-Built Roof had  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 23  
not been approved. Most of the time Mr. Tryon spent was intended to help the  
Sherwoods in their claim. She also notes that the Strata Corporation did not examine  
either of the Sherwoods for discovery.  
[92] It appears all of the units claimed by the Strata Corporation relate to preparing  
for the discoveries of Ms. Sharp and the Strata Corporation representative. It is not  
appropriate for me to engage in a speculative analysis of the relative merits of issues  
addressed during the discovery. The discovery transcripts were not tendered in any  
event.  
[93] These claims are based on the length of the examinations and as such the  
number of units claimed is appropriate. I allow 10.5 units for this item.  
Item 20 19.5 Units Claimed  
[94] This item includes attending the examination of Ms. Sharp by the Strata  
Corporation for a total of 1.5 days and the examination of a representative of the  
Strata Corporation by Cinnabar for 1.5 days.  
[95] Ms. Sharp opposed any units being granted under this item for the same  
reason as indicated under item 19.  
[96] These claims are based on the length of the examinations and as such the  
number of units claimed is appropriate. I allow 19.5 units for this item.  
Item 21 18 Units Claimed  
[97] The Strata Corporation says it prepared for the following contested  
applications:  
a) May 24, 2016, half-day application to settle Justice Maisonville’s order  
referring the petition to the trial list;  
b) May 9, 2017, Cinnabar’s 1-day application for production of documents or  
information from the Sherwoods and Strata Corporation;  
c) October 24, 2018, Cinnabar’s half-day application to vary the order after trial  
regarding costs;  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 24  
d) June 6, 2019, Cinnabar’s half-day application to reschedule the Sherwoods’  
previously adjourned contempt application;  
e) January 24, 2020, Cinnabar’s half-day application for a stay of execution of  
costs;  
f) March 15 and18, 2021, 2-day application before Chief Justice Hinkson for an  
order setting aside portions of Justice Gray’s order, including the costs award.  
g) October 4, 2021, 1-day application before Master Scarth for documents,  
answers to questions and adjournment of an assessment of costs.  
[98] Ms. Sharp opposes the units claimed under this item. She says the time spent  
should be based on minimum available for simple applications. She suggests no  
evidence was provided that some of those applications were awarded costs against  
Cinnabar.  
[99] Save for the first item, settling Justice Maisonville’s order, the above items all  
relate to applications made by Cinnabar in which costs were awarded against  
Cinnabar or in the cause. The Strata Corporation was not awarded costs against the  
Sherwoods for the balance of these applications. In my view, costs of the balance of  
these applications are more appropriately addressed as between the Strata  
Corporation and Cinnabar in the Victoria Action.  
[100] I allow 1.5 units for the application to settle Justice Maisonville’s order.  
Item 22 30 Units Claimed  
[101] This relates to the same applications as set out under item 21 but relates to  
the hearing of the relevant applications. Total claimed for the contested applications  
is 30 units.  
[102] Ms. Sharp raised the same objection as she did under item 21.  
[103] For the same reasons indicated under item 21 above, I allow 2.5 units for the  
application to settle Justice Maisonville’s order.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 25  
Item 24 3 Units Claimed  
[104] This relates to preparation for a costs assessment which was scheduled for  
January 24-25, 2022. Ms. Sharp made an oral adjournment application at the start of  
the hearing based on late-breaking health issues. The adjournment was granted by  
Master Scarth with costs thrown away to be assessed. The hearing was adjourned  
to March 7-8, 2022.  
[105] This order for costs thrown away was made against Cinnabar, as the party  
seeking the adjournment. Both the Strata Corporation and Sherwoods wanted the  
hearing to proceed. The Strata Corporation was not awarded costs against the  
Sherwoods. As such, this is more appropriately addressed in the Victoria Action. I do  
not allow any units against the Sherwoods for this item.  
Item 25 3 Units  
[106] This relates to attendance at the costs assessment as noted under item 24  
above.  
[107] For the same reason indicated under item 24 above, I do not allow any units  
under this item.  
Item 26 22.5 Units Claimed  
[108] This relates to preparation for the contested hearing of the petition, which  
occupied a total of 4.5 days in all.  
[109] Ms. Sharp opposes any units being granted under this item. She says the  
Strata Corporation and Sherwoods were responsible for the petition being  
transferred to the trial list due to allegedly false allegations made by Mr. Moran, a  
representative of the Strata Corporation, in his affidavit. She also says the Strata  
Corporation and Sherwoods both used the wrong version of strata bylaw during the  
hearing of the petition. She also argued this proceeding has not yet been concluded  
and that Cinnabar intends to make an application for special costs once it has.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 26  
[110] There is no finding that false allegations were made by the Strata  
Corporation’s representative. I also note Chief Justice Hinkson commented on the  
finality of Justice Gray’s order in his oral reasons dated March 18, 2021:  
[19] In my view Cinnabar’s application is misguided for a number of reasons.  
Remarkably, Cinnabar advanced their application before me on the basis that  
order of Madam Justice Gray was not a final order. It was a final order, and  
thus Cinnabar’s reliance on authorities such as Este v. Esteghamat-Ardakani,  
2020 BCCA 202 … was misplaced.  
[111] Justice Gray ordered costs of the proceeding. This includes costs related to  
preparation for the hearing of the petition. This is a fixed item based on length of  
hearing. I allow 22.5 units.  
Item 27 45 Units Claimed  
[112] This relates to the contested hearing of the petition, which occupied 4.5 days.  
The Strata Corporation claims 45 units.  
[113] Ms. Sharp opposed any units being awarded for the same reasons she  
indicated under item 26.  
[114] This is a fixed item based on length of hearing. I award 45 units.  
Item 31 3 Units Claimed  
[115] This relates to preparation for the case planning conference held October 24,  
2016 (half-day) and the trial management conference of May 5, 2017 (half-day).  
[116] Ms. Sharp opposes any units being out awarded under this item. She argues  
that at the case planning conference, the Sherwoods and Strata Corporation tried to  
delay by postponing the trial and prolong it by insisting witnesses give viva voce  
testimony instead of relying on their affidavits. She also complains about the manner  
in which the trial dates were scheduled. She says Mr. Tryon insisted on ensuring  
there was hotel availability during proposed trial days before he would commit to any  
particular date. She suggests that any delay prejudiced her and her husband  
because their unit remained uninhabitable while the dispute remained unresolved.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 27  
[117] The issues raised by Ms. Sharp are not proper basis to reduce or deny units  
otherwise due under this item. I allow 3 units.  
Item 32 5 Units Claimed  
[118] This relates to attendance at the case planning conference of October 24,  
2016 (half-day) and the trial management conference of May 5, 2017 (half-day).  
[119] Ms. Sharp opposes any units being awarded under this item for the same  
reason as set out under item 31.  
[120] For the same reason indicated under item 31, I allow 5 units.  
Item 34 90 Units Claimed  
[121] This relates to preparation for 18 hearing days of trial, at the fixed rate of 5  
units per day.  
[122] Ms. Sharp argues that irrelevant and false allegations by the Strata  
Corporation caused the trial to take longer than necessary. She also suggests the  
Strata Corporation assisted the Sherwoods in obtaining a remedy which is  
unenforceable.  
[123] I understood the former point to relate to alleged credibility issues raised  
against Ms. Sharp at the hearing of petition stage which were not pursued at trial. I  
was not provided specific evidence supporting Ms. Sharp’s interpretation. The latter  
point does not assist Cinnabar in resisting the normal application of fixed units times  
length of trial. I allow 90 units.  
Item 35 180 Units Claimed  
[124] This relates to attendance at trial, which occupied 18 hearing days multiplied  
by ten units per day comes to 180 units.  
[125] Ms. Sharp raises the same objection as indicated under item 34.  
[126] For the same reasons indicated under item 34 above, I allow 180 units.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 28  
Item 36 10 Units Claimed  
[127] Mr. Tryon testified that the Strata Corporation prepared a written closing  
argument at trial, consisting of 30 pages, single spaced. A copy was tendered in  
evidence.  
[128] Ms. Sharp opposes any units being awarded under this item. She suggests  
the issue in dispute was not important. She also says no evidence was tendered to  
address whether the time spent on the written argument was reasonably necessary.  
[129] The written argument sets out detailed submissions regarding facts and law  
pertaining to the issues before Justice Gray and appears to have been of substantial  
assistance to the court. I allow 8 units.  
Item 37 3 Units Claimed  
[130] Mr. Tryon testified that on June 17, 2015, the Strata Corporation attended at  
the Vancouver courthouse for the hearing of the petition. The matter was bumped  
because no judge was available.  
[131] Ms. Sharp opposes any units being awarded under this item. She says  
counsel for the Sherwoods failed to contact scheduling to advise that out of town  
counsel would be attending and that Mr. Tryon should have checked with scheduling  
in advance to avoid an unnecessary attendance.  
[132] There is no dispute that Mr. Tryon attended for the scheduled hearing. While  
the failure to inform scheduling that out of town counsel would be attending is  
unfortunate, there is no evidence suggesting that doing so would have made a  
difference in this instance.  
[133] This is a fixed item. I allow 3 units.  
Item 41 1 Unit Claimed  
[134] Mr. Tryon drafted, circulated and entered Justice Gray’s order after trial.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 29  
[135] Ms. Sharp opposes any units being awarded. She argues Mr. Tryon did not  
draft the order properly and this resulted in numerous subsequent applications to  
vary the order.  
[136] It is not disputed that counsel for the Strata Corporation drafted and entered  
this order. The issues raised by Ms. Sharp are not relevant to assessment of this  
tariff item. It is fixed and based on the number of orders involved. I allow 1 unit.  
Item 48 46 Units Claimed  
[137] Mr. Tryon practised with Crease Harmon LLP, which has its office in Victoria.  
He was retained due to his experience and specialized knowledge in the area of  
SPA matters. The Strata Corporation is physically based in Parksville, and many  
witnesses are located in and around the southern end of Vancouver Island. The  
Sharps also reside in Victoria.  
[138] The Sherwoods started this proceeding in Vancouver registry, apparently  
because they reside in North Vancouver and their counsel’s office is in Vancouver.  
[139] The Strata Corporation claims for travel days that its counsel travelled  
between Vancouver and Victoria for various appearances and hearings. These  
include one day for May 4, 2015, which is the original hearing of a petition which did  
not proceed, four travel days for the hearing of the petition, one day for settling the  
order of Justice Maisonville, eight travel days related to the trial, one day for the  
case management conference, one day for the trial management conference, one  
day for Cinnabar’s application of May 9, 2017, one day for Cinnabar’s application of  
October 24, 2018, one day for a pre-hearing conference for assessment of costs on  
May 8, 2019, one day for Cinnabar’s application to reschedule the Sherwoods’  
contempt application on June 6, 2019, one day for Cinnabar’s application for a stay  
of the costs order, one day for the attendance on January 24, 2022 to assess costs,  
which was adjourned, for a total of 23 travel days, at two units per day, for a total of  
46 units.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 30  
[140] Ms. Sharp opposes any units being awarded under this item. She objects to  
any award for travel and accommodation related disbursements for counsel to travel  
between Victoria and Vancouver. She says the Strata Corporation should have  
retained Vancouver counsel to act for it. She also suggests Mr. Hallsor’s expenses  
would have been avoided if a Vancouver lawyer had been retained and he should  
have arranged to attend certain routine hearings via telephone, to avoid  
unnecessary travel costs.  
[141] Ms. Sharp also raises travel-related objections to several large  
disbursements, addressed in more below. I will address the travel issue generally  
here.  
[142] In Milkovich v. Bucan, 2010 BCSC 1582 at paras. 38-41, Master Bouck  
summarized authorities addressing counsel travel claims:  
38 A party's entitlement for costs for retaining "out-of-town" counsel has  
been the subject matter of numerous decisions. The issue arises in various  
scenarios, including where that non-resident counsel is retained by the party:  
*because of a personal affiliation or connection; or  
*upon the death or resignation of the original counsel; or  
*through the auspices of a virtual or satellite office.  
39 The decisions cited by counsel appear, at first blush, to be irreconcilable.  
Some of the earlier authorities place significant weight on the fact that a pool  
of competent local counsel could have been retained by the party. In those  
circumstances, the retention of out of town counsel was not justified. Later  
decisions consider the availability of local counsel but that factor is not  
determinative of the issue. Rather, the circumstances of the action as a whole  
must be considered.  
40 In the oft-cited case of Allen v. Homan (1998), 45 B.C.L.R. (3d)  
211 (S.C.), (then) Master Chamberlist outlined the following principles:  
41 With these various decisions in mind, I am of the view that the  
following principles, inter alia, should be utilized to determine whether  
or not costs associated with the retention of out-of-town counsel  
should properly be visited upon the unsuccessful party:  
1. The tariff of party and party costs is predicated on there  
being a traditional review of all costs and disbursements  
claimed by the successful party and the allowance of those  
items found to be reasonable and necessary in the particular  
circumstances of the case before they are properly visited  
upon the defendant.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 31  
2. The particular circumstances of each case will determine if  
particular cost items and related disbursements should be  
borne by the unsuccessful party.  
3. The assessing officer's review of Item 36 claims (out-of-  
town counsel) and related disbursements should be no  
different than the assessing officer's review of any other item  
and related disbursement, the sole question being  
reasonableness and necessity.  
4. Relative to Item 36 and related disbursements, there should  
be no set rule that a successful party will be denied  
indemnification relative to these costs unless exceptional  
circumstances are shown to exist.  
5. The reasonableness of the decision to [engage] out-of-town  
counsel must be demonstrated by the party submitting the bill,  
the onus remaining with him or her as it is with he or she  
demonstrating the necessity and reasonableness of any other  
disbursement incurred in the prosecution of the case for which  
indemnification from the unsuccessful party is claimed.  
6. In determining the reasonableness of the submitting party's  
decision to retain out-of-town counsel, the assessing officer  
should objectively attempt to determine whether or not the  
decision to retain the out-of-town counsel was reasonable and  
necessary in all of the circumstances.  
41 And further:  
49 Ultimately, the question is -- Is it reasonable in all of the  
circumstances of a particular case to have costs associated with the  
retention of out-of-town counsel visited upon the unsuccessful party?  
[143] In Brown v. Lowe et al, 2001 BCSC 105 at paras. 9-14, Registrar Horn noted  
that it is not just a matter of asking whether there is a pool of equally competent  
counsel in the place where the trial was held, particularly where the plaintiff has  
chosen a place of trial which is distant from where the witnesses reside:  
9 I do not consider that the question before me can be decided simply by  
asking whether there was a pool of equally competent counsel in the  
Nanaimo judicial district. I have no doubt that there is such a pool. There are,  
I think, other more weighty considerations than that.  
10 The plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the defendant, Lowe,  
which collided with a horse on the highway near Merville. Merville lies  
between Courtenay and Campbell River. Mr. Bryson was not the owner of the  
horse, but had allowed the defendants Gossen to pasture the horse on his  
land. The horse escaped onto the highway.  
11 Nanaimo was the place of trial chosen by the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not  
reside in Nanaimo nor did any of the defendants. The only connection with  
Nanaimo was that the plaintiff's solicitor carries on practice there.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 32  
12 The law firm acting for the defendant Bryson was instructed by an insurer  
whose British Columbia office is in Vancouver. The law firm is one which is  
experienced in the defence of personal injury claims and has frequently acted  
on behalf of the insurer.  
13 The plaintiff having been rendered a quadriplegic, the exposure to a large  
award of damages award was real. The defendants' combined exposure was  
said to be up to $4,000,000 and the exposure of Mr Bryson's insurer up to  
$1,000,000. Liability was vigorously disputed among the several defendants.  
14 In the circumstances of this case, I conclude that it was proper for the  
defendant and his insurer to have engaged the services of an experienced  
Vancouver law firm.  
[144] In Holland v. Marshall, 2011 BCSC 607 at para. 57, Master Young (as she  
then was) allowed travel costs for Vancouver counsel to travel to Penticton to defend  
a medical negligence claim:  
57 The solicitors claim 8 units for four trips from Vancouver to Penticton for  
court applications. According to the decision of Allen v. Homan (1998), 45  
B.C.L.R. (3d) 211 (S.C. Registrar), the assessing officer must decide whether  
it is reasonable in all of the circumstances for the party liable to pay costs to  
have to bear the expense for out-of-town counsel. One of the circumstances  
that I can consider is whether there is a pool of experienced local counsel  
who could have dealt with the case. In this case, Karen Douglas has  
considerable experience representing physicians in medical malpractice  
cases, and it seems reasonable that she should be retained by a number of  
physician defendants to defend this action. I will allow 8 units claimed under  
this tariff item.  
[145] In Lund v. Black Press Group Ltd., 2011 BCSC 992 at paras. 34-36, Registrar  
Bouck considered whether retaining out of town counsel who had considerable  
knowledge of the controversy and considerable expertise was reasonable:  
34 The assessment of both tariff item 36 and several of the disbursements  
depends on whether it was reasonable for the Defendants to have retained  
Mr. McConchie in this proceeding.  
35 Plaintiff's counsel relies on various authorities in support of the  
submission that the costs associated with Mr. McConchie's travel (as "out of  
town counsel") should be disallowed. Those authorities include the leading  
case of Allen v. Homan (1998), 45 B.C.L.R. (3d) 211 (S.C. Registrar).  
36 Upon considering the authorities, I find that the decision by the  
Defendants to retain Mr. McConchie was reasonable in all of the  
circumstances of this case. First, Mr. McConchie had considerable  
knowledge of the controversy which gave rise to the action having acted for  
Mr. Thornton in the Home Equity action: see Denmar Equipment Rentals Ltd.  
v. 342699 B.C. Ltd., 2004 BCSC 1169 at para. 34. Second, Mr. McConchie  
offers expertise in the area of defamation law that may not have been  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 33  
generally available from local counsel: Holland (Guardian ad Litem) v.  
Marshall, 2011 BCSC 607 at para. 57. Third, the local counsel with an  
equivalent expertise in defamation law had acted against Mr. Thornton in  
the Home Equity action.  
[146] In the present case, when the dispute began to develop, the Strata  
Corporation retained senior, experienced strata law litigation counsel whose office  
was relatively conveniently located relative to the strata property, council members,  
the property manager and key witnesses. As it became clear that litigation would be  
necessary to resolve matters, the original intention was to file its own petition against  
Cinnabar. Presumably, that would have been done via the Victoria registry, which  
was convenient for Mr. Tryon and the Sharps. Cinnabar also initially had Victoria-  
based counsel assisting it.  
[147] The focus of the legal proceedings shifted to Vancouver after the Sherwoods  
filed their petition in the Vancouver registry. Shortly thereafter the Strata Corporation  
started the Victoria Action against Cinnabar. That action became dormant pending  
the outcome of this proceeding.  
[148] It was clearly reasonable for the Strata Corporation to involve Victoria-based  
counsel initially. The question is whether, after the Sherwoods filed their petition in  
Vancouver, was it reasonable for the Strata Corporation to pass along to the  
Sherwoods (and indirectly to Cinnabar) travel related costs associated with it  
continuing to use Victoria-based counsel to defend a Vancouver-based proceeding?  
[149] In my view, it is relevant that there was a lengthy period involving legal  
counsel which preceded the Sherwoods filing their petition. Mr. Tryon had been  
extensively involved in investigating and advising the Strata Corporation regarding  
the dispute and formulating its legal position. Once the petition was started, it made  
sense in the circumstances that he continue so as to carry out the Strata  
Corporation’s defence of the claims against it in the petition. The defence of the  
petition later morphed into a defence of the action, after it was referred to the trial  
list. At that point, Mr. Tryon’s involvement and expertise in the dispute was  
considerably greater, such that it continued to be reasonable for the for Strata  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 34  
Corporation to involve him as counsel to defend the action. The proceedings have  
unexpectedly taken considerable longer to wrap up than expected, but that was not  
known at the time petition and action stages began.  
[150] I conclude that it is reasonable in all the circumstances of this case for the  
Strata Corporation to have retained Mr. Tryon to act for it to defend the proceeding  
and it is also reasonable to visit counsel’s travel-related expenses upon the  
Sherwoods in the award of costs against them. Because of there being a Bullock  
order for costs, these costs are also passed along indirectly to Cinnabar.  
[151] I am going to exclude the travel days relating to Cinnabar v. Strata  
Corporation related applications, which in my view are more appropriately addressed  
under the Victoria Action. That leaves 18 travel days, at two units per day, for a total  
of 36 units.  
Total Units Allowed  
[152] The foregoing amounts allowed add up to 501 units, at $110 per unit is  
$55,110. Adding to this GST (5%) of $2,755.50 and PST (7%) of $3,857.70, brings a  
total of $61,723.20.  
Disbursements  
BC Ferries - $1,637.45 Claimed  
[153] This relates to BC Ferries charges for Mr. Tryon to travel between Victoria  
and Vancouver on 9 occasions during the course of proceedings. Receipts were  
tendered.  
[154] Ms. Sharp opposes all travel expenses claimed by the Strata Corporation for  
the reasons set out under Item 46 above.  
[155] For reasons indicated under item 46 above, I allow counsel’s BC Ferries  
related travel expenses. As some of these appear to be related to Cinnabar v. Strata  
Corporation related applications, I assess this at $1,400.00, inclusive of tax.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 35  
LTSA Certified Copies - $146.21 Claimed  
[156] This relates to certified copies obtained in November 2015 for use in the  
litigation.  
[157] Ms. Sharp opposes this item on the basis that it was unnecessary.  
[158] I accept that the certified copies were reasonably necessary and allow this at  
$146.21.  
Witness Fees / Travel Allowance - $1,459.40 Claimed  
[159] This includes $419.90 for Ms. Stoneadge, $418.40 for Mr. Stark, $414.00 for  
Mr. Cutt, $34.00 for Ms. Sharp and $173.20 for Mr. Tryon. One witness, Mr.  
Rushforth, declined payment of the witness fee and travel allowance. A second, Mr.  
Moran, was not called and did not cash the cheque he received with his subpoena.  
[160] Ms. Sharp opposes all witness fees on the basis that she says they were  
unnecessary.  
[161] I accept that it was reasonable for the Strata Corporation to call these  
witnesses as part of its case. I allow this at $1,459.40.  
Cinnabar Document Charges - $1,122.50 Claimed  
[162] This relates to amounts that Cinnabar charged the Strata Corporation for  
copies of listed documents. This includes three charges in May and June 2017,  
namely $825.00, $250.00 and $35.00.  
[163] Ms. Sharp opposes this item. She argues that the excessive number of  
documents was the result of the Sherwoodsclaim in negligence, which was  
assisted by the Strata Corporation. She says the Strata Corporation did not inform  
her that it did not need the documents in time, therefore they were not picked up and  
the time was wasted to produce them.  
[164] I accept that it was reasonable and necessary for the Strata Corporation to  
obtain a copy of Cinnabar’s documents. I allow this at $1,122.50.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 36  
Document Reproduction - $6,393.98 Claimed  
[165] This relates to copying and printing recorded on counsel for the Strata  
Corporation’s disbursement recording system and is based on 24,358 pages at  
$0.25 per page. Mr. Tryon says efforts were made to remove pages related to an  
application for which Cinnabar was awarded costs, related to the appeal and related  
to post-trial applications for which the parties were ordered to pay their own costs.  
[166] The summary attached to Mr. Tryon’s affidavit is for the period up to October  
10, 2019 and indicates 14,873 copies / printing. There were several substantial  
applications thereafter and the materials for this assessment were voluminous - 5  
three-inch binders.  
[167] Ms. Sharp opposes the document reproduction cost claim. She says the  
documents which were reproduced were not necessary and the Strata Corporation  
refused to produce necessary documents. She again points to the fact that the  
Strata Corporation was ordered to provide an affidavit verifying its list of documents.  
She also says the Strata Corporation did not tender evidence indicating that all  
documents produced were for litigation and not copies for the client.  
[168] Ms. Sharp did not cross-examine Mr. Tryon regarding where documents were  
being sent. In any event, I do not agree with the proposition that counsel providing a  
copy of documents produced in the litigation to their own client ought to be excluded.  
[169] I have not allowed costs relating to certain applications made by Cinnabar on  
the basis that these are more appropriately dealt with under the Victoria Action as  
costs issued directly between the Strata Corporation and Cinnabar. Copies relating  
to those applications are likewise more appropriately addressed in the Victoria  
Action. That said, the largest volume of copies appears to have been generated in  
relation to the hearing of petition and trial.  
[170] I assess the total document reproduction charges at $4,500, inclusive of tax.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Courthouse Library Copies - $11.55 Claimed  
Page 37  
[171] This relates to a December 3, 2015 charge incurred by Mr. Tryon for a copy  
card. Ms. Sharp opposes this item based on the lack of evidence as to why  
photocopies at the library were necessary. It is not clear if the entire card was used  
for copies related to this matter. I will treat this item as included under Document  
Reproduction above. This is disallowed.  
Fax - $79.20 Claimed  
[172] This relates to faxes sent by counsel for the Strata Corporation, as recorded  
in the firm’s disbursement tracking program. The per page rate appears to be $0.30.  
[173] Ms. Sharp opposes this item on the basis that there was no evidence or  
reason why the facts costs were necessary for conducting the trial or petition. She  
notes that she and her husband do not have a fax machine and have never found it  
necessary to have one for purposes of the litigation.  
[174] I am satisfied it was reasonable for counsel for the Strata Corporation to  
occasionally send documents by fax. I allow the full amount claimed for this item,  
$75.40 plus tax of $3.80, for a total of $79.20.  
Long Distance Telephone - $19.20 Claimed  
[175] This relates to 5 long distance calls.  
[176] Ms. Sharp opposes this item on the basis that there was no evidence or  
reason why the law firm did not have a plan for free long-distance calls. She also  
argues that a long distance plan should be considered overhead.  
[177] This is litigation which spanned Parksville, Victoria and Vancouver. I accept  
that there was occasion for modest long-distance charges to be incurred. I allow the  
full amount claimed for this item, $18.29 plus tax of $0.91, for a total of $19.20.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Courier - $567.98 Claimed  
Page 38  
[178] This relates to about 29 courier charges between June 2014 and September  
2019.  
[179] Mr. Tryon’s evidence is that use of a courier was necessary because  
Cinnabar did not provide an email address or fax number for service. Ms. Sharp  
suggested that materials could have simply been mailed.  
[180] Ms. Sharp opposes this item, saying courier services were not reasonably  
necessary. Service via Canada Post would have been adequate  
[181] At various times during the proceedings there were issues raised regarding  
service of documents. At the hearing before me, Ms. Sharp disputed whether she  
had been served with amended bills of costs. This was clearly highly contentious  
litigation and I agree it was prudent for counsel to courier materials whenever it was  
important to be able to establish service.  
[182] I allow the full amount claimed for this item, $540.93 plus tax of $27.05, for a  
total of $567.98.  
BC Online / Court Services Online - $472.69 Claimed  
[183] This relates to online filing and search fees.  
[184] Ms. Sharp opposes this item on the basis that no evidence was provided to  
establish that the services were related or reasonably necessary for the trial or  
petition.  
[185] I am satisfied that the supporting evidence shows that the charges relate to  
various court filings and searches. I allow the full amount claimed for this item,  
$422.05 plus tax including GST of $21.10 and PST of $29.54, for a total of $472.69.  
Binding - $383.71 Claimed  
[186] This relates to in-house binding charges for assembling binders for trial. The  
amount claimed arises from three charges in May and July 2017.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 39  
[187] Ms. Sharp opposes this item. She says there is no evidence provided as to  
why the high cost of binding fees was reasonably necessary for conducting the trial  
or petition.  
[188] I do have a concern about the evidence led for this particular item. I have the  
dates and amounts and a sample of the internal form used for calculating binding  
charges. The actual forms for these particular transactions were not included. I also  
have not been provided any breakdown or estimate of what is included in the  
amounts charged.  
[189] I have no doubt that there was significant expense involved in assembling  
binders used for trial given the volume of documents involved. I assess this item at  
$250.00 inclusive of tax.  
Registry Agent - $747.96 Claimed  
[190] This relates to charges for Wendy Smith Registry Service for variety of  
services including agent fees for bylaw search and process serving which appears to  
relate to subpoenas to witnesses.  
[191] Ms. Sharp opposes this item on the basis that no evidence was provided as  
to why Canada Post could not be used for a lower fee.  
[192] I do not agree that Canada Post is a viable alternative for the types of  
services indicated on the supporting invoices provided. I allow the full amount  
claimed for this item, $712.34 plus tax including GST of $35.62 for a total of  
$747.96.  
Accommodations Counsel and Witness - $17,099.49 Claimed  
[193] This includes $12,379.74 for Mr. Tryon, $2,608.05 for “witness”, $165.00 for  
Mr. Hallsor and $1,152.76 for Mr. Mujtaba, Mr. Tryon and Mr. Evans.  
[194] Ms. Sharp opposes this item for the same reasons indicated for item 18  
above.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 40  
[195] For the same reasons indicated under item 46 above, it is appropriate to allow  
reasonable accommodation costs, but I am discounting this for accommodation  
costs related to the Cinnabar v. Strata Corporation applications. I am also of the  
view that some of the accommodation expenses appear somewhat high and to  
include extraneous charges. I assess this at $15,000.00 inclusive of tax.  
Travel By Air - $2,139.00 Claimed  
[196] This includes January 24, 2020 ($594.00) for Mr. Hallsor, June 6, 2019  
($394.30), February 14, 2017 ($256.44), May 8, 2019 ($398.10) and August 21,  
2018 ($394.30).  
[197] Ms. Sharp opposes this item, for the same reasons indicated under item 46.  
[198] For the same reasons indicated under item 46 above, I allow reasonable  
travel by air costs but I am discounting this based on some items appearing to relate  
to Cinnabar v. Strata Corporation applications. I assess this at $1,300.00 inclusive of  
tax.  
Taxi, Skytrain, Parking - $329.83 Claimed  
[199] This includes charges for Canada Line, parking, cab charges and parking  
receipts. All appear to relate to hearings which took place in the course of the  
proceedings. The majority of these relate to Mr. Tryon.  
[200] Ms. Sharp opposes this item for the same reasons indicated under item 46  
above. She also argues that Mr. Tryon did not provide any reason why the public  
bus would not have been a sufficient alternative.  
[201] I allow this in the amount claimed, $315.50 plus tax of $14.33, for a total of  
$329.83.  
Mileage - $288.74 Claimed  
[202] This relates to a mileage charge claim by Mr. Tryon on March 7, 2017. My  
understanding is that this relates to him attending to interview witnesses in and  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 41  
around the Parksville area. The charge appears to be based on is a rate of $0.52 per  
kilometre.  
[203] Ms. Sharp opposes this item.  
[204] I agree it was reasonable for Mr. Tryon to travel to meet in person with  
witnesses. I allow this item at $200 all inclusive.  
Meal Reimbursement - $1,829.60 Claimed  
[205] This is for Mr. Tryon, Mr. Mujtaba and Mr. Evans.  
[206] Ms. Sharp opposes this item for the same reasons indicated under item 46  
above.  
[207] It is appropriate to allow some reimbursement for meal costs. I will discount  
this based on some items being related to Cinnabar v. Strata Corporation issues and  
some meal expense claims appearing relatively high. I assess this at $1,400.00,  
inclusive of tax.  
Exam for Discovery / Transcript Fees - $4,269.77 Claimed  
[208] This relates to court reporter charges for examinations for discovery and  
transcripts from the various discoveries that were conducted. Copies of relevant  
invoices were included.  
[209] Ms. Sharp opposes this item on the basis that the examinations for discovery  
were excessive and unnecessary.  
[210] I am not aware of any indication that the trial judge found any of the  
examinations were inappropriate. In a matter with this complexity, I am not prepared  
to assume that discoveries were frivolous. It was reasonable to have copies of  
transcripts for use at trial. I allow the full amount claimed for this item, plus tax of  
$203.32, for a total of $4,269.77.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Office Supplies - $49.38 Claimed  
Page 42  
[211] This relates to a claim for the cost of office supplies in June and July 2017.  
One is referred to as flash drive. The other two are not described.  
[212] Ms. Sharp opposes this item on the basis that it ought to be included in office  
overhead.  
[213] Given the lack of detail supporting this claim, I disallow it.  
Total Disbursements Allowed  
[214] Total disbursements allowed, including applicable taxes, total $33,264.74.  
SherwoodsBill As Against Cinnabar  
[215] I turn now to the Sherwoods’ Bill of Costs against Cinnabar.  
Item 1 10 Units Claimed  
[216] Mr. Lucas testified that the plaintiffs retained him on July 5, 2013. Between  
then and September 15, 2014, when their petition was filed, he investigated,  
gathered documents and researched applicable bylaws and the SPA. This included  
review of AGM minutes, relevant correspondence, building plans, building permits,  
engineering reports and municipal orders. Thereafter, he corresponded and  
negotiated with the Strata Council, property manager, Strata Corporation counsel,  
Cinnabars counsel and communicated with the City of Parksville. This involved him  
sending 10 letters, receiving 5 letters, exchanging numerous emails and numerous  
telephone calls with the plaintiffs.  
[217] Ms. Sharp argues no evidence was provided for the time spent to justify the  
units claimed. She takes issue with the Sherwoods having sent a letter dated July  
12, 2013 in which quoted draft bylaws which were not the correct version. She  
suggests the Strata Corporation accepted the Sherwoodscomplaint based on the  
wrong bylaws. She suggests this unduly complicated matters during the early phase.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 43  
[218] Ms. Sharp also says the matter was complicated by a false allegation made  
against her by the strata manager, Mr. Moran, alleging she had lied to him about the  
revised building plans having been approved by the City of Parksville. Ms. Sharp  
says she admitted from the outset of the dispute that the revised building plans had  
not been approved by the City and had not been reviewed by the strata council’s  
representative, Mr. Rushforth. She suggests any time spent was not reasonable and  
necessary for a dispute involving raising a ceiling 4 inches and a modest monetary  
claim, particularly considering that the Sharps made reasonable settlement offers  
early in the process.  
[219] Mr. Tryon acknowledged that he had initially provided a draft set of bylaws by  
his client, but this issue was drawn to his attention early on by Cinnabar’s then  
counsel, Ms. LeBlanc and the correct version of the bylaws obtained from the Land  
Title Office. The Sherwoods became aware of this issue around the same time.  
There was no specific evidence tendered indicating this particular error resulted in  
significant wasted costs or effort.  
[220] With regard to Mr. Moran, this was an issue that Ms. Sharp raised repeatedly  
but she did not provide any evidence to substantiate her allegation or to help  
quantify how much time was “wasted” in connection with it.  
[221] I have addressed Ms. Sharp’s general argument that the relief sought and  
granted was minor above and will not repeat that here. Suffice to say that the court  
did grant relief requiring removal of the As-Built Roof and replacement with a new  
one similar to the design originally approved. The Sherwoods did achieve, indirectly,  
the primary relief they were seeking. Implementation of that relief was still pending at  
the time of this hearing.  
[222] I am satisfied that the Sherwoods engaged in substantial relevant  
correspondence, conferences, instructions, investigations and negotiations in the  
period leading up to the start of the proceeding. I allow 7 units for this item.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 44  
Item 2 30 Units Claimed  
[223] Mr. Lucas filed the Sherwoodspetition on September 15, 2014. As noted, it  
was heard before Justice Maisonville for 4 days on October 1-2 and December 2-3,  
2015. On February 24, 2016, she ordered the matter transferred to the trial list. A  
further half-day hearing was held to address issues arising from her order.  
[224] The trial proceeded before Justice Gray for 18 days in June and July 2017.  
Mr. Lucas says it involved complex issues of fact and law, including claims of  
negligence, significant unfairness under the SPA and legal principles relating to  
approvals of renovations by strata corporations and strata councils. Justice Gray  
issued lengthy reasons, involving 362 paragraphs, on May 31, 2018.  
[225] Between September 15, 2014 and May 31, 2018, Mr. Lucas undertook  
research and investigations into complicated areas of law involving the SPA,  
Business Corporations Act, Strata Property Regulation and relevant bylaws. He  
corresponded and negotiated with counsel for the Strata Corporation and initially  
counsel for Cinnabar and subsequently Mr. and Ms. Sharp directly. He had  
interactions with the counsel for City of Parksville, representatives of the City and  
various witnesses, including Mr. Redfern, Mr. Hasler, Ms. Day and Ms. Stoneadge.  
This involved him sending 70 letters, receiving 50 letters, sending and receiving  
hundreds of emails with opposing counsel and the Sharps, exchanging numerous  
emails and having numerous telephone conferences with his clients to confirm their  
instructions.  
[226] Ms. Sharp repeated her objection based on the parties using the wrong set of  
bylaws and making false allegations relating to Mr. Moran. She also suggested the  
Sherwoods provided no evidence that the time spent on preparing the petition or the  
trial justify the units claimed.  
[227] I have already addressed the points regarding the temporary use of the wrong  
version of the bylaws and the allegations relating to Mr. Moran. The bylaw error was  
detected and corrected early in the process and the correct version was used  
thereafter. The fact that some issues were initially raised and not necessarily  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 45  
pursued at trial is potentially a factor to consider but I do not have specific evidence  
showing that the issue Ms. Sharp raises occupied significant time.  
[228] I am satisfied there was substantial correspondence, conferences,  
instructions, investigations and negotiations in the period after the start of the  
proceeding to the completion of the trial. I allow 25 units.  
Item 3 10 Units Claimed  
[229] Mr. Lucas states that following the order of Justice Gray, the parties had  
difficulty resolving the dispute and effecting the order. He suggests the process was  
complicated somewhat by Justice Gray’s retirement.  
[230] From May 31, 2018, he was involved in trying to carry into effect the order of  
Justice Gray by investigating and researching the bylaw procedures of the City of  
Parksville. He corresponded and negotiated with counsel for the Strata Corporation,  
counsel for Cinnabar, and Mr. and Ms. Sharp. He communicated directly with  
counsel for the City of Parksville and representatives of the City regarding  
enforcement of the order. This involved sending approximately 30 letters, receiving  
approximately 20 letters, sending and receiving numerous emails with opposing  
counsel and Ms. Sharp, and numerous emails and telephone conferences with his  
clients.  
[231] He describes the action as hard-fought and highly combative. Cinnabar has  
not had counsel for most of the proceeding and has been self-represented by Mr.  
and Ms. Sharp. He says they have been difficult to deal with, in all aspects of the  
proceeding. He argues they have taken unreasonable positions that have  
unnecessarily increased the plaintiff’s legal costs, including but not limited to  
unsuccessfully applying to set aside the costs order of Justice Gray, applying for a  
stay of execution of the costs order, unsuccessfully applying for directions before Mr.  
Justice Affleck in an effort to reset the plaintiff’s contempt application which had  
been adjourned generally, refusing to provide electronic copies of their listed  
documents and failing to sign orders for no valid reason. Cinnabar and the Sharps  
refuse to accept the outcome of the trial and the costs order.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 46  
[232] Ms. Sharp says both the Sherwoods and the Strata Corporation participated  
in incorrectly drafting and entering Justice Gray’s order. It was entered over the  
objection of then counsel for Cinnabar. As a result, Cinnabar had to incur legal costs  
and has suffered damages.  
[233] There have been an unusually high number of post trial applications pursued  
in this matter. For each of those, the resulting orders speak for themselves, including  
the cost consequences arising from each. It is not the registrar’s role to second-  
guess those determinations.  
[234] I am satisfied there was substantial correspondence, conferences,  
instructions, investigations and negotiations after the trial or hearing to enforce the  
final order. I allow 7 units.  
Item 6 10 Units Claimed  
[235] Mr. Lucas testified that this included drawing, filing and delivering the original  
petition, an amended petition, the affidavits in support of the petition, the notice of  
civil claim and an amended notice of civil claim. Copies of all of these have been  
produced in evidence.  
[236] Ms. Sharp argues that no evidence was provided that the pleadings were  
drafted. She also argues the Sherwoods provided no evidence that the time spent  
on preparing for the hearing of a claim relating to a minor issue was necessary and  
reasonable. She argues as well that they have provided no evidence that the time  
spent was not related to the false allegation of Mr. Moran and the use of the wrong  
set of bylaws. She suggests there is no evidence regarding the amount of time spent  
on drafting simple pleadings, when the Sharps had admitted the revised building  
plans had not been approved by the City or reviewed by the strata council  
representative, Mr. Rushforth. She suggests the time claimed is out of proportion to  
the amount of issues at stake.  
[237] I have previously addressed most of Ms. Sharp’s arguments under other  
sections and will not repeat that here. I am satisfied that the process for  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 47  
commencing and prosecuting both the petition and the notice of civil claim portions  
of the proceeding were substantial and warrant an award of 10 units.  
Item 10 10 Units Claimed  
[238] Mr. Lucas notes that the last amended list of documents of Cinnabar was 557  
documents and the last amended list of the Strata Corporation was 270 documents.  
He argues that the time which would ordinarily be spent to obtain delivery inspection  
of that number of documents justifies an award of the maximum amount for up to  
999 documents.  
[239] Ms. Sharp argues the claim is not reasonable for a minor dispute. She says  
the Sherwoods have provided no evidence that any of the documents were used or  
that the demand for additional documents made one month before trial was  
reasonable and necessary. She says there is no evidence indicating the documents  
were reviewed by counsel or that it was reasonable and proper to review the excess  
documents demanded, which she suggests were not material to the proceeding. She  
did not provide copies of the documents to help establish this proposition.  
[240] Ms. Sharp appears to misunderstand that this item is assessed based in part  
on the number of documents produced and the effort involved to locate and produce  
them. It is not appropriate for the registrar to undertake an assessment of the  
relative usefulness of each individual document listed in the proceedings. In any  
event, Ms. Sharp did not satisfy me that a substantial number of documents  
produced were irrelevant or unnecessary. I am satisfied there was substantial effort  
involved in obtaining discovery and inspection of documents. I allow 8 units.  
Item 11 10 Units Claimed  
[241] Mr. Lucas testified that the plaintiffs were obliged to produce 11 amended list  
of documents, partly in response to expressed demands from Cinnabar, and  
contained 126 documents. He suggests the time spent justifies an award of the  
maximum amount for up to 999 documents.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 48  
[242] Ms. Sharp argues there is no evidence that because they were self  
represented, it would be necessary and reasonable for the Sherwoods to provide  
unnecessary and irrelevant documents and to refuse to produce necessary and  
related documents sought by Cinnabar.  
[243] I am satisfied there was some effort involved in giving discovery and  
inspection of documents, but ultimately the number of documents listed was at the  
low end of the relevant range. To the extent that applications were involved, those  
are addressed under another item. I allow 3 units.  
Item 15 5 units Claimed  
[244] Mr. Lucas produced the notice to admit delivered by Cinnabar dated  
September 8, 2016 and the reply to notice to admit of the plaintiffs dated September  
22, 2016. The former seeks admission of 4 points of law and 109 factual points.  
[245] The plaintiffs’ reply to notice to admit refuses to admit all 4 points of law. For  
the factual points, the plaintiffs refused to admit 6 paragraphs on the grounds that  
the requests are improper because they are statements of law or mixed law and fact.  
They deny the truth of the facts stated in the majority of the paragraphs without any  
elaboration. They refused to admit facts described in 13 paragraphs on the basis of  
irrelevancy. They did admit the facts set out in 9 paragraphs. The reply is brief,  
occupying less than two pages.  
[246] Ms. Sharp argues there is no evidence that Cinnabar delivered a notice to  
admit or that any admissions were made by any parties. She goes on to make the  
contradictory argument that the Sherwoods unreasonably refused to admit many  
facts.  
[247] Where a party has unreasonably refused to admit facts, that is an issue that  
can be addressed in costs. That is normally addressed with the trial judge when  
costs are addressed. Ms. Sharp did not draw my attention to any finding to that  
effect. The Sherwoods’ response is brief and somewhat unresponsive where facts  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 49  
have been denied. I allow 3 units, based on the length and complexity of the notice  
to admit.  
Item 18 10 Units Claimed  
[248] Mr. Lucas indicates he contacted and interviewed Mr. Hasler, Ms. Day, Ms.  
Stoneadge, Mr. Kutt, Mr. Redfern, Ms. Sherwood, Mr. Schopp and Mr. Peters. He  
issued subpoenas to Mr. Schopp and Mr. Peters.  
[249] Ms. Sharp says there is no evidence that the witnesses were subpoenaed,  
interviewed and provided evidence at trial. She also says there is no evidence that it  
was reasonable and necessary to call the total number of witnesses ultimately called  
between the Strata Corporation and Sherwoods. She also argues that some of that  
evidence was not relevant.  
[250] It is not appropriate for me to delve into the relative merits of the evidence  
given by various witnesses, unless there are clear findings in the reasons or  
evidence indicating they were irrelevant or unnecessary, which is not the case here.  
I am satisfied that substantial effort was involved in contacting, interviewing and  
issuing subpoenas to witnesses. I allow 7 units.  
Item 19 7.5 Units Claimed  
[251] This relates to preparation for examination for discovery by the party being  
examined. Mr. Lucas testified that the examination of Ms. Sherwood by Cinnabar  
occupied 1.5 days, including a full day on February 14, 2017 and a half day on  
February 28, 2017. The examination of Mr. Sherwood by Cinnabar occupied one full  
day on February 24, 2017.  
[252] Ms. Sharp argues there was no evidence provided that there was any  
preparation for examination incurred or that it was necessary or reasonable given  
the nature of the claim.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 50  
[253] I am satisfied there was general evidence of preparation for the examinations  
of both Mr. and Ms. Sherwood by Cinnabar. This is a fixed item based on length of  
examination. I allow 7.5 units.  
Item 20 12.5 Units Claimed  
[254] This relates to attendance for examination for discovery by the party being  
examined. The same dates under item 19 above apply here.  
[255] Ms. Sharp argues that the Sherwoods provided no evidence that any  
examination for discovery took place or in any event that it was necessary and  
reasonable given the nature of the claim.  
[256] I am satisfied that there was evidence that examinations for discovery of Mr.  
and Ms. Sherwood took place and the length of those discoveries. This is a fixed  
item based on length of examination. I allow 12.5 units.  
Item 21 12 Units Claimed  
[257] Mr. Lucas testified that he prepared for the following opposed hearings:  
a) The plaintiffs applied to amend the notice of civil claim and for production of  
documents, which was opposed and occupied a half day;  
b) Cinnabar applied for an order seeking further examination for discovery of  
Ms. Sherwood and for production of documents, which was opposed and  
occupied a half day;  
c) Cinnabar applied to vary the award for costs of Justice Gray, which was  
opposed and occupied a half day;  
d) Cinnabar applied for a stay of execution of the costs order made by Justice  
Gray, which was opposed and occupied a half day;  
e) The Sherwoods applied to vary the order after trial, which was opposed and  
occupied a full day;  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 51  
f) The Sherwoods applied to vary the order after trial, which was opposed and  
occupied a full day.  
[258] Ms. Sharp argues there was no evidence provided that the applications were  
made. Further, she says there is no evidence that the strata Corporation in the  
Sherwoods were successful parties on the relevant applications. She also argues  
that the Sherwoods did not provide evidence that it was necessary and reasonable  
to make the applications.  
[259] I have been provided copies of the relevant applications and entered orders,  
including costs of each. This is a fixed item based on the length of the relevant  
hearings. I allow 12 units.  
Item 22 20 Units Claimed  
[260] This relates to attendance at the contested hearings listed under item 21  
above.  
[261] Ms. Sharp raises similar objections to those indicated under item 21 above.  
[262] This is a fixed item based on the length of the relevant hearings. I allow 20  
units.  
Item 26 22.5 Units Claimed  
[263] This relates to preparation for the opposed hearing of the petition before  
Justice Maisonville, which occupied 4 days and a subsequent half-day attendance  
after her memorandum to counsel was issued.  
[264] Ms. Sharp argues there is no evidence that the petition proceeded on those  
days, the order granted or that costs were awarded on the application.  
[265] I have been provided copies of the petition and responses to petition, as well  
as Justice Maisonville’s entered order. This is a fixed item based on the length of the  
relevant hearing. I allow 22.5 units.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 52  
Item 27 45 Units Claimed  
[266] This relates to the opposed hearing of the petition, on the dates indicated  
under item 26 above.  
[267] Ms. Sharp raises similar objections to those indicated under item 26 above.  
[268] I am satisfied there is evidence the hearing proceeded and occupied 4.5  
days. This is a fixed item based on the length of the relevant hearing. I award 45  
units for this item.  
Item 29 4 Units Claimed  
[269] This relates to preparation for attendance at the January 24, 2022 and  
January 25, 2022 registrar’s hearing to assess costs, for costs thrown away, for two  
days. This is the hearing that Ms. Sharp applied to adjourn at the start of the hearing  
based on related health issues.  
[270] This is a fixed amount of 2 units per day for a scheduled 2 day hearing. I  
agree that 4 units for preparation for 2 hearing days is appropriate as costs thrown  
away.  
Item 31 3 Units Claimed  
[271] This relates to preparation for the case planning conference held on October  
17, 2016 for a half-day and the trial management conference held May 5, 2017 for a  
half-day.  
[272] Ms. Sharp objects on the basis that no evidence was provided that the case  
planning conference took place on that date, the time spent, issues are resolved, the  
orders granted and costs awarded.  
[273] There was evidence provided that these two hearings did occur, so an  
amount for preparation is appropriate. I allow 3 units.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 53  
Item 32 5 Units Claimed  
[274] This relates to attendance at the case planning conference and trial  
management conference held on the dates indicated under item 31 above.  
[275] Ms. Sharp raises similar objections to those noted under item 31.  
[276] I allow 5 units.  
Item 34 90 Units Claimed  
[277] This relates to preparation for the 18-day trial before Justice Gray.  
[278] Ms. Sharp argues that there was no evidence provided that the trial took  
place on those dates, the time spent for preparation and no evidence it was  
reasonable or necessary to conduct an 18-day trial given the issues in dispute.  
[279] There was clear evidence from Mr. Lucas and Mr. Tryon that the 18-day trial  
took place. This is also reflected on the reasons for judgment. This is a fixed item  
based on the number of days of trial, at five units per day. I allow 90 units.  
Item 35 180 Units Claimed  
[280] This relates to attendance at the 18-day trial before Justice Gray as indicated  
under item 34 above.  
[281] Ms. Sharp raises similar objections to those noted under item 34 above.  
[282] This is a fixed item based on the number of days of trial, at 10 units per day. I  
allow 180 units.  
Item 36 10 Units Claimed  
[283] Mr. Lucas prepared a written argument for trial, comprising 53 pages, most of  
which is at 1.5 spacing. He tendered a copy of the argument in evidence.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 54  
[284] Ms. Sharp argues that there was no evidence provided that the 53 page  
argument was prepared or provided at trial. Also, there was no evidence that it was  
reasonable or necessary for a claim of this nature.  
[285] I have reviewed the argument and am satisfied that it is appropriate to allow 8  
units.  
Item 37 3 Units Claimed  
[286] This relates to attending for a hearing where the party is ready to proceed but  
the hearing is not started. Mr. Lucas says that on June 17, 2015, he attended at the  
Vancouver Law Courts for the hearing of the petition. It did not proceed because  
there was no judge available. It was subsequently rescheduled to October 1, 2015.  
[287] Ms. Sharp objects that there is no evidence that counsel attended the  
Vancouver courthouse on that date. She also goes on to complain that Mr. Lucas  
failed to inform scheduling that out of town counsel would be attending the hearing.  
She suggests that had he done so, the case would have been more likely to have  
had a judge assigned to it.  
[288] There was evidence provided that Mr. Lucas attended the Vancouver  
courthouse on June 17, 2015 for the hearing of the petition and that there was no  
judge available. There was no evidence indicating the hearing would have  
proceeded had Mr. Lucas informed scheduling regarding out of town counsel being  
involved. This is pure speculation on Ms. Sharp‘s part. This is a fixed item. I allow 3  
units.  
Item 40 1 Unit Claimed  
[289] Mr. Lucas indicates he caused the notice of trial to be drafted, entered and  
served on the parties. He has tendered a copy of the notice of trial filed November 9,  
2016.  
[290] Ms. Sharp argues that there was no evidence that the notice of trial was  
served on anyone, and no evidence that the trial was reasonable and necessary for  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 55  
a claim of this nature. She suggests that the expenses could have been used for the  
renovation.  
[291] I am satisfied Mr. Lucas prepared and filed the notice of trial. This is a fixed  
item. I allow 1 unit.  
Item 41 5 Units Claimed  
[292] Mr. Lucas testified that he drafted, circulated and/or entered the following  
orders:  
a) Order of Justice Maisonville made February 24, 2016;  
b) Order of Master Tokarek made May 2, 2017;  
c) Order of Master Tokarek made May 9, 2017;  
d) Order of Chief Justice Hinkson made November 29, 2018; and  
e) Order of Chief Justice Hinkson made January 24, 2020.  
[293] Ms. Sharp argues that there is no evidence that any of the orders were  
entered. She also argues that it was obstruction of justice for the order after trial to  
have been entered over Cinnabar’s legal counsel’s objection.  
[294] This item does not require any analysis of the underlying merits of the orders,  
just evidence regarding who prepared and entered them. I am satisfied that Mr.  
Lucas did so. This is a fixed item based on the number of orders entered. I allow 5  
units.  
Total Units Allowed  
[295] The foregoing amounts allowed add up to 488.5 units, at $110 per unit is  
$53,735. Adding to this GST (5%) of $2,686.75 and PST (7%) of $3,761.45, brings a  
total of $60,183.20.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 56  
Disbursements  
Filing Fees - $800 Claimed  
[296] This relates to the filing fees for the petition, notice of civil claim, 2 consent  
orders, the notice of trial, 2 notices of application and the appointment. Supporting  
documentation was tendered in evidence for each of these.  
[297] The amount claimed is reasonable and was appropriate and necessary for  
these proceedings. I allow $800.  
Witness Fees - $504.78 Claimed  
[298] This relates to witness fees paid for the two subpoenaed witnesses, Mr.  
Schopp ($261.60) and Mr. Peters ($243.18).  
[299] Ms. Sharp objects to these based on there being no evidence that the witness  
fees were incurred and that they were necessary and proper to call these witnesses  
for the proceeding.  
[300] The Sherwoods have tendered evidence which satisfies me that the relevant  
witnesses were subpoenaed and the claimed fees paid. I allow the amount claimed,  
namely $504.78.  
Hearing Fees 18 Day Trial - $9,900 Claimed  
[301] This relates to hearing fees paid to the registry for the 18-day trial. This  
includes 7 days at $500 per day for days 4-10 and 8 days at $800 per day for days  
11-18 of the trial.  
[302] Ms. Sharp objected to this item as well on the basis that an 18-day trial was  
not reasonable and necessary for the matters in issue.  
[303] The Sherwoods have tendered evidence which satisfies me that the hearing  
day fees were invoiced to them and paid by them. I allow $9,900.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 57  
BC Online / Court Services Online - $580.38 Claimed  
[304] Mr. Lucas testified that his firm incurred BC Online / Court Services Online  
charges totaling $580.38. A printout of relevant charges was provided.  
[305] Ms. Sharp objected generally to all disbursements based on reasonableness  
and proportionality.  
[306] I am satisfied that the charges claimed were necessary and reasonable. I  
allow this at $580.38 plus GST, for a total of $609.40.  
Courier - $1,635.32 - Claimed  
[307] Mr. Lucas says his office uses PDX Courier for out-of-city service deliveries.  
Charges fluctuated depending on the number of attempts at delivery, whether a  
proof of delivery is required, the driving time spent driving from his office to the  
individual’s residence and how fast the package needs to be delivered. In this case it  
was necessary to courier documents to Cinnabar, care of Mr. and Ms. Sharp’s  
residence in Victoria because they did not provide an email address or fax number  
for delivery. This occasionally made it necessary for repeated attempts at delivery on  
occasions when they were not home.  
[308] He indicates his office also uses Dogbite Courier to travel to the Vancouver  
Law Courts to file documents. Copies of invoices are tendered.  
[309] Ms. Sharp argues that no evidence was provided that it was proper and  
necessary to use a courier. She says there is no evidence that proof of service of the  
relevant documents had to be proven. There was no evidence that there was any  
urgency for any documents to be delivered. She suggests that regular post would  
have been sufficient. She argues there is no rationale provided for the use of a  
courier to file documents at the Vancouver courthouse. No evidence also why a  
proof of signature was needed for any of the documents delivered. She suggests  
there was no evidence indicating that the Sharps did not accept emails.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 58  
[310] Cinnabar only provided the Sharps’ residential address as its address for  
service. I agree it was reasonable for pleadings, applications and time sensitive  
documents to be delivered in a way that provided objective confirmation of delivery. I  
do not agree that it was necessary to require an actual signature receipt of delivery,  
as opposed to just proof that the courier delivered the package to the address. I note  
that many of the courier slips include waiting charges, presumably indicating the  
Sharps were not home when the courier initially attended so the courier waited for  
them to return. I do not agree it was reasonable to include waiting charges.  
[311] I allow courier fees at $1,300, which is inclusive of tax.  
Document Reproduction - $5,343.50 Claimed  
[312] The amount claimed is based on 21,374 pages at $0.25 per page. This  
includes internal photocopies and scanning.  
[313] Ms. Sharp argues that scans are part of office overhead and that there was  
no evidence that the large volume of photocopies was made and that it was proper  
and necessary to conduct the proceeding given the issues in dispute.  
[314] Scans can be claimed. I am of the view that a modest reduction is appropriate  
to address unnecessary duplication. I allow the document reproduction charges at  
$4,500, inclusive of tax.  
Long Distance - $203.25 Claimed  
[315] Mr. Lucas testified that this relates to telephone calls with counsel for the  
Strata Corporation, a number of witnesses and representatives of Cinnabar, all of  
whom are located on Vancouver Island.  
[316] Ms. Sharp argues no evidence was provided that long distance calls  
occurred. She also argues there is no evidence that the law offices did not have a  
long distance phone plan which provided for free long distance.  
[317] The Sherwoods did tender evidence regarding the various calls and charges.  
They did not provide details regarding the specific numbers called in each instance. I  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 59  
accept that some long distance charges were incurred given that most of the people  
involved in the case were located on Vancouver Island. I allow long-distance  
charges at $125, inclusive of tax.  
Agent / Search Fees - $624 Claimed  
[318] Mr. Lucas testified that his firm incurred expenses through their agent and  
search fees totalling $624.00. A printout of relevant charges was provided.  
[319] Ms. Sharp objected generally to all disbursements based on reasonableness  
and proportionality.  
[320] I am satisfied that the charges claimed were necessary and reasonable. I  
allow this at $624.00 plus GST, for a total of $655.20.  
Transcripts / Court Reporter - $3,839.20 Claimed  
[321] Mr. Lucas testified that his office incurred expenses ordering transcripts of the  
examinations for discovery of Ms. Sharp, Mr. Rushforth, Ms. Sherwood and Mr.  
Sherwood. Additionally, it incurred costs to obtain a transcript of the cross-  
examination of Mr. Stark at trial, to help with preparation of closing submissions.  
Copies of invoices were tendered.  
[322] Ms. Sharp argues that no evidence was provided that the transcripts on the  
examination for discovery were ordered. She also argues there is no evidence that  
the transcripts were necessary and proper.  
[323] I was provided evidence that the transcripts were ordered as well as their  
cost. In my view, it was reasonable and necessary to order available transcripts for  
purposes of preparing for and conducting the 18-day trial. I allow $3,839.20.  
Process Server - $277.75 Claimed  
[324] Mr. Lucas says his office incurred agent and/or process serving charges  
relating to service of subpoenas on Mr. Schopp and Mr. Peters, service of a notice of  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 60  
application for non-party documents on the City of Langford and to file documents at  
the Vancouver Law Courts. Copies of invoices were tendered.  
[325] Ms. Sharp argues that there is no evidence provided that anyone was  
subpoenaed and, in any event, it was proper and necessary to do so given that the  
Sharps had admitted at the outset that the revised billing plans had not been  
approved. Further, she argues that it was not necessary and proper to serve an  
application on the city of Langford or to serve Mr. Peters or Mr. Schopp of the City of  
Parksville for a claim of this nature.  
[326] The Sherwoods did tender evidence confirming process server costs  
incurred. I agree these were reasonable and necessary for prosecution of the action.  
I allow $277.75 plus GST, for a total of $291.64.  
External Copy Work - $1,442.85 Claimed  
[327] Mr. Lucas says that on occasion his office was required to incur external copy  
work charges for print jobs that were large and time sensitive. It also includes  
amounts charged to Mr. Lucas’s firm for photocopies of Cinnabar documents.  
Copies of the relevant invoices are included.  
[328] I accept that these copy charges are reasonable as presented and allow them  
at $1,442.85, which is inclusive of tax.  
Total Disbursements Allowed  
[329] Total disbursements allowed, inclusive of applicable tax, is $23,939.05.  
Conclusion  
[330] The tariff items allowed on the Strata Corporation’s bill of costs to the  
Sherwoods total 501 units, at $110 per unit is $55,110. Adding to this GST (5%) of  
$2,755.50 and PST (7%) of $3,857.70, brings a total of $61,723.20. The  
disbursements allowed on the Strata Corporation’s bill of costs to the Sherwoods  
total $33,264.74. The Sherwoods thus owe the Strata Corporation costs totalling  
$94,987.94.  
Sherwood v. The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549  
Page 61  
[331] The tariff items allowed on the Sherwoods’ bill of costs to Cinnabar total 488.5  
units, at $110 per unit is $53,735. Adding to this GST (5%) of $2,686.75 and PST  
(7%) of $3,761.45, brings a total of $60,183.20. The disbursements allowed on the  
Sherwoodsbill of costs to Cinnabar total $23,939.05. Also, pursuant to the order of  
Justice Gray, costs that the Sherwoods are required to pay the Strata Corporation  
are also added as a disbursement. Cinnabar accordingly owes the Sherwoods a  
grand total of [$60,183.20 + $23,939.05 + $94,987.94 =] $179,110.19.  
Costs of the Assessment  
[332] This assessment was originally scheduled for 2 days but ended up requiring  
3.5 days to complete. The overage was in large part attributable to Ms. Sharp cross-  
examining at length on issues that were of little or no relevance to assessment of  
costs. In the interests of achieving finality, I summarily assess costs of this  
assessment based on 3.5 hearing days of unit 29 - preparation for assessment of  
costs at 2 units per day and 3.5 days of unit 30 - attendance before a registrar to  
assess costs at 4 units per day. This comes to 21 units at $110 per unit, for a total of  
$2,310. Adding GST and PST brings this to $2,587.20.  
[333] The Strata Corporation is awarded $2,587.20 as costs of this assessment  
against the Sherwoods. The Sherwoods are awarded $2,587.20 as costs of this  
assessment against Cinnabar. Pursuant to the order of Justice Gray, costs that the  
Sherwoods are required to pay to the Strata Corporation are added as a  
disbursement their bill of costs against Cinnabar. Cinnabar thus owes the  
Sherwoods total costs of this assessment of $5,174.40.  
Master Bilawich”  

Top Judgements:
Saskatoon Co-operative Association Limited v United Food and Commercial Workers | Aug 15, 2022
Old Lakeshore Inc. v City of Burlington | Sep 2, 2022
Tietz v. Affinor Growers Inc. | Sep 13, 2022
Efficiencyone (E1) | Sep 6, 2022
President's Choice Bank v. The Queen | Jul 19, 2022
First Global Data Ltd | Sep 15, 2022
Rayonier v Unifor, Locals 256 and 89 | Aug 11, 2022
Alberta Workers’ Compensation Appeals Commission | Decision No. 2021-0334 | Jul 14, 2022
Metrowest Developments Ltd v Flynn Canada Ltd | Sep 14, 2022
R. v. Cameron | Jul 15, 2022
Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management | Jul 28, 2022
101034761 Saskatchewan Ltd. v Mossing | Aug 24, 2022
Waste Control Services Inc. v International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 115 | Aug 12, 2022
RJM56 Holdings Inc. c. Bazinet | Aug 17, 2022
Sherwood v The Owners, Strata Plan VIS 1549 | Aug 9, 2022
WCAT Decision A2001487 | Aug 8, 2022
City of Hamilton v Ontario Water Employees’ Association | Sep 12, 2022
Century Services Corp. v. LeRoy | Jul 8, 2022
United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 175 v Metro Ontario Inc. | Jul 4, 2022
Langmaid’s Island Corporation v Lake of Bays | Sep 12, 2022
WCAT Decision A2102416 | Jul 22, 2022
Inquiry about McAbee Fossil beds | Jul 14, 2022
1088558 Ontario Inc. v. Musial | Sep 16, 2022
Biogen Canada Inc. v. Pharmascience Inc. | Aug 8, 2022
CIC Management Services Inc. v City of Toronto | Jul 21, 2022
Bonterra Energy Corp v Rosells’ Enterprises Ltd | Aug 31, 2022
WCAT Decision A2100606 | Aug 17, 2022
Leffler v Aaron Behiel Legal Professional Corporation | Jun 30, 2022
Espartel Investments v. MTCC No. 993 | Aug 19, 2022
Onespace Unlimited Inc. v. Plus Development Group Corp. | Sep 19, 2022
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada v. Canada Revenue Agency | Jun 23, 2022
Community Savings Credit Union v. Bodnar | Jul 29, 2022
Galperti SRL v F.I.A.L. Finanziaria Industrie Alto Lario S.P.A | Jun 30, 2022
WCAT Decision A2102352 | Jul 6, 2022
WCAT Decision A2102306 | Jul 25, 2022
Thrive Capital Management Ltd. v. Noble 1324 Queen Inc. | Jul 12, 2022
Questor Technology Inc v Stagg | Sep 8, 2022
MediPharm v. Hexo and Hwang | Jul 25, 2022
Immunization rates & vaccine hesitancy | Aug 17, 2022
Morabito v. British Columbia Securities Commission | Aug 12, 2022
Killeleagh v Mountain View County (Development Authority) | Aug 24, 2022
Quality Control Council v Stanley Inspection Canada Ltd. | Sep 9, 2022
British Columbia Investment Management Corporation | Aug 17, 2022
Abbeylawn Manor Living Inc. v Sevice Employees International Union, Local 1 Canada | Jul 5, 2022
Windrift Adventures Inc. et al. v. Chief Animal Welfare Inspector | Aug 18, 2022
Irani and Khan v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act | Jul 14, 2022
CP REIT Ontario Properties Limited v City of Toronto | Aug 12, 2022
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Inc. v. The Queen | Jul 7, 2022
Wong v. Pretium Resources Inc. | Jul 22, 2022
Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, Union v Mulmer Services Ltd. | Aug 5, 2022
City of Mississauga v. Hung | Sep 22, 2022
Secretary of the Ministry of Health v The New South Wales Nurses and Midwives' Association (28 September 2022)
Orewa Community Church v Minister for Covid-19 Response (16 August 2022)
Yeshiva College Bondi Limited v NSW Education Standards Authority (15 August 2022)
Moreland Planning Scheme Amendment C208more | Heritage Nominations Study | Panel Report | 15 July 2022
New Zealand Tegel Growers Association Incorporated | 2 August 2022
Farrow-Smith and Comcare (Compensation) | 26 September 2022
Evolution Fleet Services Pty Ltd v Allroads Plant Pty Ltd | 14 September 2022
656621 B.C. Ltd. v David Moerman Painting Ltd. | Sep 27, 2022
Fraser Valley Packers Inc. v Raiwal Holdings Ltd | Sep 26, 2022
Parmar v Tribe Management Inc. | Sep 26, 2022
DES Studio inc. c. Shuchat | Sep 26, 2022
Van-Kam Freightways Ltd. v Teamsters Local Union No. 31 | Sep 28, 2022
Rogers Communication Inc. v British Columbia | Sep 28, 2022
Alderbridge Way GP Ltd. | Sep 28, 2022

© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission