No where does it state that he did not have standing. He as a taxpayer initiated the case, not the City. That was your point, that the Appeal court ruled he did not have standing. He in fact did have standing. So link please.
Judge Hackland never ruled on costs and his decision was subsequently overturned by a Divisional Court, which decided the city did not have the authority to impose the sanction it did.
Yes, they did not have the authority to impose the sanction. Lacks standing. In what way does he have standing if the court is unable to impose a sanction if he wins? They can hear his case, but he will have to pay twice, even if he wins? If you don't like my use of the term just say so. There is no need to be obtuse about it.
The point remains: Magder starts a lawsuit which he wins only to have it overturned on the basis that the court where he won isn't allowed to punish the mayor.
That sends a really bad message, which is the actual point you ignored:
"This court isn't allowed to punish the guy for you. The court that is, you don't have the ability to start a lawsuit in. We let you pay for a lawsuit even though we couldn't punish the defendant even if you won. You won. Now you lose. You also lose again, just so you know how impotent you are in the face of the mayor."