Yukon eviction-law challenger awarded $35,000 in costs, but denied full indemnity

A successful challenge to Yukon's five-day eviction provision has resulted in a $35,000 legal-costs award plus $10,950 in litigation expenses, but not the full-indemnity recovery sought by the challenger.

In Wright v Yukon (Government of), 2026 YKSC 37, decided May 14, 2026, Chief Justice S.M. Duncan of the Supreme Court of Yukon recognized the complexity and public importance of the constitutional litigation while finding it did not meet the exceptional threshold for special costs.

The award concerns the expense of the court proceedings, not damages for an eviction or a new ruling on the constitutional merits. Whether GST should be included remained unresolved.

Costs after a Charter victory

Celia Wright had successfully challenged section 3(2) of the Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods Act. As the costs reasons explain, the provision allowed the Director of Public Safety and Investigations to facilitate a landlord's termination of a tenancy on five days' notice as an informal response to a complaint about alleged illegal activities affecting a neighbourhood's safety.

The earlier merits ruling struck down the provision for violating the Charter right to security of the person. The court had found serious effects on tenants' psychological integrity and health, coupled with procedural unfairness, overbreadth and gross disproportionality. A separate equality-rights argument had failed for lack of evidence establishing a disproportionate effect.

The May 2026 decision dealt with what Yukon should pay toward the successful litigation. Wright's lawyer had acted without charging her and reported legal fees valued at $127,201.50, although the hours and hourly rate used to calculate that figure were not supplied.

Wright requested special costs, alternatively $75,000 plus expenses and tax, or an assessment under the highest tariff scale producing a claimed total of $58,775.50. Yukon accepted that it owed costs but disputed both the amounts and the proposed approaches.

Public importance did not mean full indemnity

Ordinary costs compensate a successful party according to the court's tariff rather than automatically reimbursing every dollar of legal fees. Special costs can provide a fuller recovery, but public-interest litigation must meet a demanding test.

The judge applied the Supreme Court of Canada's framework: the issues must be genuinely exceptional, extend beyond the successful litigant's own interests and have significant, widespread societal impact. The litigant must also establish the required lack of an economic interest justifying the litigation and inability to pursue it effectively with private funding.

The first requirement was not met here. The challenge raised important, previously unresolved issues, but the invalidated provision had rarely been used and affected a relatively narrow group. The decision's contribution to Charter law and its interest to academics and other jurisdictions did not make its societal impact sufficiently widespread for special costs.

Yukon also argued that an earlier costs decision in the same litigation prevented Wright from raising special costs again. The judge did not resolve that argument, because the request failed on its merits in any event.

A higher, practical award was still justified

Rejecting special costs did not mean treating the case as routine. The court found it was more difficult than an ordinary proceeding and used Scale C, the highest tariff scale, as a guide.

The litigation required complex constitutional arguments, substantial affidavit material and expert evidence. It had attracted intervention by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and addressed an issue important to people exposed to short-notice eviction without adequate recourse. The judge also recognized the creativity required where there were no precedents directly on point.

A strict line-by-line tariff calculation would not fit every part of the work. Constitutional litigation may require extensive witness preparation and written argument while omitting steps common in an ordinary civil action, such as oral discovery. A lump-sum award could reflect that work without a costly, detailed assessment of every tariff item.

The judge also considered Yukon's objections to particular items and the amounts claimed for case-management conferences. The award was not simply the lawyer's hours multiplied by a rate, nor a percentage of the stated legal fees.

Balancing those considerations, the court fixed costs at $35,000, with $10,950 in disbursements. It included an increase reflecting the unusual nature of the case but declined the requested $75,000 figure.

Neither party had made submissions resolving GST, so the judge left that question for agreement or a return to case management. The reasons do not establish that the costs have since been paid.

The distinction is important for public-interest litigation: a case can justify an enhanced costs contribution because of its difficulty and significance without qualifying for full-indemnity special costs.