The proposed defendants of an action that was found not to be tenable sought costs on a solicitor and client basis or substantial indemnity basis on the ground that the action included an allegation, verified by affidavit, that the Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO) was acting in bad faith impliedly in his capacity as a duly appointed officer of the Court. Counsel for the proposed defendant companies and the CRO sought full costs. The Court noted that solicitor and client costs, as opposed to party and party costs, are to be awarded only in rare and exceptional cases and in cases in which justice can be done only by a complete indemnification. HELD: Allegations of misconduct against a Court officer are rare and exceptional. Therefore, costs on this motion should be imposed on a substantial indemnity scale, although not on the full solicitor and client basis sought. The companies and the CRO are entitled to costs of $2,000 and $1,000 respectively.