a contingency fee agreement. Only when those matters were
resolved did this motion proceed.
 Although self-represented, the respondent incurred significant costs to defend himself in the motion. The respondent
asserts that work on the case resulted in a loss of opportunity to
do paid legal work on other files. In any event, the aspersions cast
by the applicant on the respondent’s professional conduct, and
which did not result in a successful motion, justify a costs award
in the respondent’s favour.
 In its bill of costs, the respondent claims $19,108.30 on
a substantial indemnity basis and, in the alternative, $14,331.23
on a partial indemnity basis. Both those amounts are inclusive of
HST. A higher amount was shown in the written submission
($28,447.75), but was not consistent with the bill of costs, so
I have ignored it. In addition, the respondent claims disbursements of $1,381.91.
 The applicant proposes that no or minimal costs be
awarded. He submits that the costs claim was excessive as to time
spent, and that the claimed hourly rate is inappropriately high.
As well, the applicant notes that the respondent’s bill of costs
does not comply with the format of the form 57B Costs Outline
including the lack of a lawyer’s certificate.
 The applicant submits that since the respondent was self-represented, evidence of lost “opportunity cost” was a requirement, but was not provided.
 In the event that a costs award is made in favour of the
respondent, the applicant requests a deferral of payment until the
conclusion of the assessment of his account which will be done by
an assessment officer in due course.
 The court’s discretion to award costs flows from s. 131 of
the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43.
 I first consider the matter without regard to the fact that
the respondent was self-represented.
 Factors to be considered in the exercising of discretion are
enumerated in rule 57.01. Success is a presumptive factor and in
this case the respondent was entirely successful. In the normal
course, an award of costs would be appropriate in favour of the
respondent, payable by the applicant. I will not review other
discretionary factors, given the conclusion I reach below on the
opportunity cost issue.
 The offer to settle made by the respondent and the corresponding offer made by the applicant are irrelevant to my decision on costs. Both offers were made after the rule 57.07 motion