Skip to main content

The Irrelevance of Costs Rules to Litigation Rates: The Experience of Quebec and Common Law Canada

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cost and Fee Allocation in Civil Procedure

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 11))

  • 869 Accesses

Abstract

All jurisdictions in Canada follow the “world rule” that the loser pays the costs of litigation. There are, however, great differences in implementation of the rule. Quebec has allowed the level of recoverable costs to become negligible, given the effect of inflation, and the operation of the “world rule” in Quebec therefore approximates the U.S. rule that each side pays their own costs. This is generally seen as a means of facilitating access to justice, eliminating the down-side risk of a costs award, yet the Quebec experience in recent years has been one of dramatic decline in litigation rates. Nor have devices such as contingent fees or class actions obviously compensated for the decline. The conclusion is that costs rules are irrelevant to litigation rates, at least where counsel fees have reached a certain level.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See the recent criticism by the Chief Justice of Canada, Beverly McLachlin, reported in The Globe and Mail, February 10, 2011 (“If you’re the only one who can provide a fundamental social need from which you benefit, I think it follows that you have to provide it”).

  2. 2.

    Art. 477, Quebec Code of Civil Procedure (CCP). The rule appears to be jurisprudential in the common law provinces, and thus constitutes judicial practice in the exercise of the court’s discretion in awarding costs, stated statutorily in Ontario in s. 131 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 43, as amended (“… the costs … are in the discretion of the court, and the court may determine by whom and to what extent the costs shall be paid”).

  3. 3.

    The Canadian Lawyer, June, 2009, p. 33.

  4. 4.

    Le Journal du Barreau du Québec, May, 2009, p. 32.

  5. 5.

    D. Jutras, “Culture et droit processuel: le cas du Québec” (2009) 54 McGill L. J. 273 at 279.

  6. 6.

    P. Fuchs, “Innovation or Interference? Third-party litigation funding offers access to justice – but is the ethical price too high?” The National, Oct–Nov 2008 at 49.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. Patrick Glenn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Patrick Glenn, H. (2012). The Irrelevance of Costs Rules to Litigation Rates: The Experience of Quebec and Common Law Canada. In: Reimann, M. (eds) Cost and Fee Allocation in Civil Procedure. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 11. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2263-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics