Thank you.
The point is that this clause gives an enormous advantage to the plaintiff and no reciprocal advantage to the defendant. If one wanted to be fair, one might want to say that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant may be ordered to pay costs, unless the action or the defence is found to be frivolous or vexatious.
One might say that the plaintiff and the defendant may be entitled to counsel fees regardless of whether or not they're represented by counsel, and an advance award, etc., but no, instead, this is, in the manner that Elinor Caplan was describing, a prototypical case of a socialist jumping into the ring to help beat up one side of an issue on behalf of the side that they perceive to be the little guy.
Now, the prototypical extreme right wing would impose this kind of a provision except perhaps they would replace the word “plaintiff” with “defendant” and beat up on the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant, but really, Mr. Chair, the point of Ms. Caplan's analogy was to say that a good government doesn't go to either of those extremes. A good government instead simply equips both parties with boxing gloves and a good ring and training, and then lets them go to it and lets the merit of the matter determine the issue.
I just think this is another good example of where this bill is the government, through the legislature, jumping into the ring on behalf of one side and trying to leave the other side with as few defences as possible. The same thing could be said regarding subclause 23(3) and a number of other provisions in this bill. It's bad law.
Thank you.