The former owner of Winnipeg’s Lemay Forest and a protester opposing its tree cutting must each bear their own legal costs, a Manitoba judge ruled when allowing the owner to discontinue its claim after the province expropriated the land.
In Memaz Inc. v. Gauthier et al., 2026 MBKB 55, delivered April 22, 2026, the Court of King’s Bench discharged the interlocutory injunction and allowed Memaz to end its claim against Monique Gauthier without costs. The order covered the entire proceeding, including the injunction hearings and the contested costs motion.
Expropriation changed the dispute
Memaz had begun a nuisance and trespass action on December 30, 2024, after opponents mobilized against tree cutting because of environmental and Indigenous concerns. The company asserted its rights as a private landowner while anticipating redevelopment approvals it had not yet obtained.
The court issued an interim injunction that day and continued injunctive relief after a January 2025 hearing. Its purpose was to protect lawful access to and use of the property while preserving the ability to protest. The judge refused the company’s request to extend the injunction to adjacent municipal land and also refused Gauthier’s request to stop the tree cutting.
The province’s expropriation removed the reason for the action and injunction to continue. Memaz had already agreed to discontinue against a number of defendants without costs. Gauthier opposed that arrangement and sought a costs payment; the company said it would seek enhanced costs if her opposition required a contested motion.
Neither side established a right to enhanced costs
Gauthier characterized the action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation, or SLAPP, intended to intimidate and silence protesters. She also challenged evidence used in the injunction proceedings and offered to accept $10,000 in costs when the claim ended.
The judge declined to make findings on the disputed evidence at this costs hearing. Even accepting it would not have changed the underlying justification for protecting the owner’s access to its property. Related allegations were also at issue in separate litigation, and unnecessary findings here could prejudice those parties.
The court rejected the characterization of Memaz’s claim as frivolous, vexatious or brought for an improper purpose. That did not amount to a final judgment on the nuisance and trespass claims: whether the company would ultimately have won or recovered more than nominal damages remained unknown. The expropriation had made the litigation moot.
Both sides sought solicitor-client costs based on allegations of especially serious misconduct. The judge rejected those requests. Despite the strongly held views involved, both parties had litigated within the bounds of reasonable conduct, and the case did not justify that exceptional level of costs.
Public interest mattered to the ordinary costs decision
A defendant is ordinarily entitled to costs when a plaintiff discontinues an action, but Rule 23.03 leaves room for a different order. The court considered whether the claim was genuinely arguable and justified, as well as the usual costs factors and purposes, including encouraging settlement and facilitating access to justice.
Memaz had succeeded at the injunction hearings. On the other side, the judge found that Gauthier’s opposition had a public-interest component and had not been unreasonable, particularly given the significant interests and short time available before the initial hearing. The court also took account of provocative public statements by the company.
The issues extended beyond the parties. The judge said the opposition came close to public-interest litigation, and the province’s stated purpose in expropriating the forest was to protect it for use as a public park. Those circumstances distinguished the case from others in which unsuccessful opponents of injunctions had been ordered to pay costs.
In the court’s assessment, each side gained something it valued: the company had obtained protection for its property interest and would benefit from the expropriation process, while the opponents had brought the tree cutting to an end. Neither should have to pay the other’s costs.
The ruling is a fact-specific exercise of costs discretion, not a general exemption from costs for environmental protesters or a finding that every disputed allegation was proved. It did not determine expropriation compensation or resolve the separate litigation mentioned in the reasons.
The province’s Lemay Forest planning page, checked for this report, describes a proposed provincial park still going through planning and engagement. The costs ruling itself did not designate a park or approve a development plan.
