R.B. REID J.: —
 The applicant was the plaintiff in a civil action against his
trade union and six of its officers. The respondent law firm,
through one of its principals, Paul Marshall, acted as counsel for
the applicant in that action.
 The action was administratively dismissed. The applicant
changed counsel. The motion to set aside the dismissal of the
action was unsuccessful. A costs order was made against the
applicant in favour of the defendants.
 The full and final payment of costs was made by the applicant in the amount of $31,958.91.
 The applicant sought an order pursuant to rule 57.07(1) of
the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 that the costs
for which the applicant was made responsible should be reimbursed to him by the respondent based on the submission that
the respondent’s mishandling of the case was the reason for the
dismissal and the adverse costs award.
 By decision dated September 25, 2018, I dismissed the
motion, holding that mistakes, negligence or errors in judgment
are not typically sufficient to justify the costs award available
under rule 57.07 and that the conduct of the respondent did not
meet the high threshold required to warrant such an order.
 An order has already been made that the account for legal
fees and disbursements rendered by the respondent to the applicant should be assessed by an assessment officer who has both
jurisdiction and expertise to deal with such matters.
 The parties were not able to resolve the issue of costs consensually and therefore have made written costs submissions.
Positions of the Parties
 The respondent seeks a costs award based on success, and
also relies on discretionary factors including complexity and the
importance of the result. The importance was both financial
and by way of professional reputation. As well, the respondent
relies on an offer to settle to support an award of substantial
 The respondent submits that the proceedings were unduly
protracted by the applicant. The motion was originally part of
a request for assessment of costs against the respondent and
two other law firms. The applicant previously questioned the
details of the retainer (which might have affected the jurisdiction of an assessment officer) and then sought a re-hearing of
that matter based on a challenge as to whether the retainer was