Rancourt's arguments that the $105,700.00 costs should be dismissed or reduced and/or delayed are (from the Factum):
10. The Appellant submits that the test of fairness and reasonableness for leave to appeal costs is amply satisfied, and that the impugned costs decision contains palpable and overriding errors of fact and law, including:
(a) the motions judge exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding costs to the University, which does not have party status, although given leave to file material but not to be awarded costs;
(b) costs for preparation of and attendance at five case conferences were awarded, contrary to binding case law;
(c) partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Plaintiff, in the absence of a need to indemnify, and raising the prospect of double recovery of costs;
(d) the motions judge did not recognize and did not consider ample evidence for the Defendant’s impecuniosity;
(e) in the circumstances of the defamation action, the awarded costs are inconsistent with Charter principles regarding the right to free expression, and definitively restrict the Defendant’s access to justice; and
(f) the quantum of costs ($105,700.00) for the one-day motion is excessive and contrary to the policy of partial indemnity.