27 Mar Bourelle v. Loukopoulos

             THE COURT:  The plaintiff seeks a review of a decision of the master sitting as registrar in which he disallowed disbursements relating to two functional capacity evaluations and a cost of future care report. The review is brought pursuant to Rule 14-1(29). The parties do not disagree on the applicable law. They agree the master was obliged to determine whether the particular costs "were proper or reasonably necessary to the conduct of the proceeding" (Rule 14-1(2)). Further, they agree on the standard of review to be applied by this court in reviewing a registrar's order as to costs. The standard of review limits the court's intervention to circumstances in which the registrar was "clearly wrong" or has, "gone wrong on a matter of principle" (see generally Frost v. Frost, 56 B.C.R. 30 (C.A.)). The standard of review is necessarily deferential and it is so for the reasons expressed by Legg J. in Bell v. Fantini (1981), 32 B.C.L.R. 322.The Facts...