[powderjunkie]

One last little bit. The applicants lawyers took this case pro bono, but they're getting awarded their costs anyways. I suspect they knew this was possible/probable, but still a nice outcome...out of taxpayer's pockets of course because of a financially responsible conservative government.

Spoiler!

Costs
[219] Costs usually follow the event and are paid by the unsuccessful party to the successful
party. There is no reason to depart from that general principle here.

[220] The Applicants were represented by counsel on a pro bono basis. However, as the Court
of Appeal recognized in 1465778 Ontario Inc. v. 1122077 Ontario Ltd., 2006 CanLII
35819 (ON CA) at para. 35, cost awards to pro bono counsel “promotes access to justice
by enabling and encouraging more lawyers to volunteer to work pro bono in deserving
cases.” This is especially applicable where, as here, the case raises important matters of
public interest. On this basis, the Applicants are entitled to their costs.

[221] The government has now changed the law and taken the position that the case is moot. In
such circumstances, the case law suggests that the government should pay costs, as it has
effectively conceded that the law required changes: Regional Municipality of York v.
Ontario (Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks), 2023 ONSC 5708 at
paras. 30-35; Broomer v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2004 CanLII 27253 (ON SCDC) at
para. 11. Accordingly, had I found that the matter was moot, I would also have awarded
costs of the application to the Applicants.

[222] The Applicants shall therefore have their costs of the application on a partial indemnity
basis fixed in the amount of $200,000.00, inclusive of HST and disbursements. This is
approximately what is sought in the Applicants’ Costs Outline and is precisely what the
Respondent would have sought if it had been successful. It is, accordingly, an amount that
the Respondent ought reasonably to have expected to pay in costs.

[223] The amount awarded includes costs of the original interim injunction motion heard by
Firestone R.S.J. on March 11, 2025, which were reserved to me as the judge hearing the
application: Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al., 2025 ONSC 1650
at para. 85. As I noted in my reasons granting an injunction following the argument of the
full application, the government took no steps to remove the target bike lanes prior to April
16, 2025, making the earlier motion an unnecessary use of court time caused by the
government’s intransigence: Cycle Toronto et al. v. Attorney General of Ontario et al.,
2025 ONSC 2424 at para. 37. The Applicants should therefore have their costs of that
motion as well.