[29] That is not to say that transfer of the file without the assumption of disbursements should necessarily be refused whenever such a retainer agreement is in place. There are other considerations that could potentially be at play. Here, the plaintiffs are on public assistance, and do not have the means to pay $11,000 in disbursements. Denying them their file could well raise access to justice issues. However, this would only become a concern if it were clear that they simply could not retain competent counsel who were willing to carry their disbursements. From all of the evidence in this file, I am not persuaded that this is the case.
[30] I find it telling that Arvai maintains that it was unable to pick up $11,000 in disbursements, yet was apparently prepared to incur legal expenses totalling $25,991.84 to litigate the issue. This was a shockingly disproportionate waste of legal resources.
[31] If anyone is entitled to costs, it is Grillo. The result that was ultimately arrived at is more favourable to Grillo than their offer to settle of February 11, 2016. However, in my view, parties and counsel should be encouraged to settle their disputes, and should not be discouraged from doing so by the threat of a substantial award of costs being made against them thereafter. I am disposed to follow the approach of Templeton J. in Talbot, and award no costs to either side on any of the matters before me.