The Respondent was successful on two Appeals. The first Appeal was in relation to an Application for advice and direction in an Estate Matter. The second Appeal was of the Costs Award. The Respondent applied to have costs of the Appeals settled but the Application raised several issues.

First, Rule 14.88(3) states that, unless otherwise ordered, Costs of an Appeal will be determined on the same scale that applied to the Order or Judgment in the Court below. While Costs were awarded in the Court below at two times Schedule C, Column 5, the Court of Appeal noted that automatic doubling of Costs should not be the norm. For example, in the Court below there were findings of misconduct. However, there was no misconduct by the Appellants in relation to the Appeals.

Second, Costs were awarded in the Court below under Column 5 because of the value of the Estate. Accordingly, Column 5 was the proper column for the Appeal on the merits. However, the appropriate column for the Costs Appeal was Column 1 since the amount of Costs awarded in the Court below fell within that column.

Third, the Appellants argued for only one set of Costs. The Court of Appeal disagreed and noted that it was the Appellants who commenced two Appeals. Since factums were necessary on both Appeals, Costs were awarded in relation to both.

Fourth, at the end of the oral hearing, the panel requested supplemental submissions on a point of law. The Appellants proposed that Item 22 of Schedule C was the relevant item, as it dealt with appearances on contested Applications before the Appeal Court, including brief. The Respondent proposed Item 12 of Schedule C as the relevant item, as it dealt with written argument at the request of the Trial Judge. The Court of Appeal was persuaded that Item 22 was the proper item for both the supplemental submissions and the appeal Costs submissions.

Lastly, the Respondent had made two Calderbank offers. The first offer after the factums in the merits Appeal were filed but before factums in the Costs Appeal were filed. The second offer, after the release of Judgment. The Court of Appeal found the first Calderbank offer to be a genuine offer which was bested. The second Calderbank offer had not been bested as it sought quadruple Costs. Therefore, the Respondent was entitled to double Costs from the date of the first Calderbank offer.