acted improperly or was concealing the documents. There is no
dispute that Father B.’s name should not have been redacted in
the diary, but as no one asked for the document, the improper
redaction caused no harm.
 I would allow the appeal, dismiss the cross-appeal and
remit M.F.’s claim to the chief adjudicator for reconsideration. As
the administrative judge noted, M.F. has waited a long time and
gone through many proceedings and his claim has not yet been
resolved. It is plainly in the interest of justice that the reconsideration be completed as soon as possible.
 Canada does not seek costs of the appeal. The more difficult issue is whether we should accede to the claims advanced by
M.F. and independent counsel that Canada pay their costs despite
the outcome of the appeal. Awarding costs to an unsuccessful litigant is permitted by rule 57.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, but doing so is rare. Canada has benefitted
from having the law clarified on important aspects of the IAP
process, a factor that may justify an award of costs to an unsuccessful party: Schachter v. Canada, supra; B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid
Society of Metropolitan Toronto,  1 S.C.R. 315,  S.C.J.
No. 24. The fees of lawyers representing IAP claimants are limited and relatively modest. This appeal raised and clarified
important legal issues that transcended the interests of M.F. This
court benefited from having the submissions of M.F. and independent counsel in resolving those issues. It seems to me that in
these circumstances, it would be in keeping with the spirit of the
IRSSA and the interests of justice to require Canada to pay
$50,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes towards M.F.’s costs
here and below. I would also award costs to independent counsel,
fixed at $10,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes.
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Giannini v. City of Toronto
[Indexed as: Giannini v. Toronto (City)]
2017 ONSC 1489
Superior Court of Justice, Dunphy J. March 3, 2017
Municipal law — Elections — Finances — Applicant failing to file
audited financial statement by required date after running unsuccessfully in municipal election — Applicant applying almost two years later