Gignac v Hornibrook

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, ntca, 2026nwtca8, 2026 nwtca 8 (canlii), 2026, nwtca, 8, (canlii), a-1-ap-2025-000018, 2026, procedure, civil appeals, permission to appeal costs, application under rules of the court of appeal for the northwest territories respecting civil appeals, rr 4(1)(e), 41(e), 42(b), application for permission to appeal a costs decision, costs appeal to proceed while substantive action progresses, permission to appeal granted, procedure, costs, leave test, brill v brill, jackson v canadian national railway company, bun v seng, 1985 sawridge trust v kennedy, banovich and banovic, whether the four criteria for permission to appeal costs are met, onerous test and permission granted sparingly, practical utility and no delay considered, permission to appeal granted, procedure, costs, solicitor and client costs, young v young, whether solicitor and client costs were warranted for “reprehensible” conduct, whether the chambers judge failed to consider a less severe cost response as proportionate, exercise of discretion and question of principle in costs awards, permission to appeal granted, professional responsibility, counsel conduct, sharp practice and conflict of interest, whether counsel’s conduct was “unreasonable”, “sharp practice”, or a “failure to deal with opposing counsel fairly, candidly and in good faith”, alleged “personal attack on legal counsel” and professional misconduct finding, contact with law society regarding restricted appearance certificate, permission to appeal granted, evidence, evidentiary foundation, assumptions without evidence, whether the costs decision was “based on assumptions and conclusions” about law society practices and procedures “without evidence”, whether there was evidence on restricted appearance certificates and related proceedings, basis for findings supporting solicitor and client costs challenged, permission to appeal granted