This was a ruling on Costs following numerous proceedings regarding parenting time. The proceedings included an Application by CZ to reopen the Court’s Decision to grant increased parenting time to RB pursuant to Rule 9.13. That Application was dismissed.

RB argued that he was entitled to Costs under Rule 10.29 because he was successful in obtaining increased parental time. Moreover, RB argued that he should be granted double Costs for a portion of the proceedings because a Formal Offer had been submitted pursuant to Rule 4.29. The Formal Offer was not tabled within 10 days of a hearing as required by Rule 4.29(4)(c). RB argued, however, that the Court has discretion under Rule 4.29 to extend or shorten timelines so as to award double Costs.

CZ opposed RB’s Application for Costs by highlighting Rule 10.33(2) which places Costs in the discretion of the Court following consideration of factors including whether a party has engaged in misconduct. CZ reminded the Court of numerous instances throughout the proceedings where RB misled the Court both in oral and written submissions.

Labrenz J. specifically noted that the discretion to refuse Costs for a party who has engaged in misconduct is expressly recognized under Rule 4.33(2). Labrenz J. then ruled that Costs were not appropriate in this case despite RB’s success because he had committed “serious litigation misconduct.” RB’s Application for Costs was dismissed.