administration of justice is overtly and deliberately thwarted by
a litigant, full indemnity costs is the appropriate sanction.
 There was a lot at stake for the defendants in this action.
The amount claimed was $523,068 and there would have been
a significant amount of prejudgment interest over the period of
many years from when the action began had the plaintiff been
successful. Added to this is the defendants’ claim for damages of
$65,112.86 for deficient work.
 The quantum of costs claimed by the defendants is proportionate and not beyond the expectation of the plaintiff, having regard to the length of the trial and the extensive documentation
which the plaintiff produced late in the overall process. In an
attempt to prove its claim, the plaintiff’s productions combined
valid documentation with what the court has found to be false,
fraudulent or misleading documents. This added to the trial
preparation time and effort needed in order to facilitate the
court’s proper assessment regarding the veracity and reliability of
the documentary evidence.
 The plaintiff’s own legal fees, including HST are shown to
have been $483,789.72. The case took years to reach trial. The
defendants’ counsel was required by its own investigation to
arduously spend significant time to uncover and demonstrate the
plaintiff’s scheme to mislead the court, and to establish proof for
the court of the lies being advanced. This was extra time the
defendants’ counsel was required to spend to properly defend the
claim. The trial was much longer as a result of the plaintiff’s
attempts to deny or justify the dishonesty.
 In these circumstances, which necessitated the meticulous
examination and analysis of a large number of documents produced by the plaintiff, the costs as claimed by the defendants are
fair, reasonable and proportionate to what the plaintiff would
expect in comparison to its own significant costs.
 Costs in full indemnity are therefore awarded to the
defendants fixed at $578,793.29.
3) Non-Party Liability for Costs
 The defendants’ claim for costs against the non-parties,
Manny and Joe Marcos, arises from the submission that Manny
and Joe, as equal partners, were responsible for the decision to
commence this action and for the egregious conduct of the action
on the plaintiff’s behalf. They reference the evidence of both
Manny and Joe at trial and the manner in which Joe and Manny
operated Marcos together. They highlight the personal mingling