10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
10.31: Court-ordered costs award
10.33: Court considerations in making costs award

Case Summary

This was a Costs Decision awarded following the conclusion of a Trial and oral reasons provided by Jones J. The parties had formerly been Adult Interdependent Partners and the Trial was to resolve a dispute between the parties as to appropriate compensation following the end of that relationship. At Trial, the Defendant/Plaintiff by Counterclaim, Cargyle, was largely successful in obtaining the support she sought though the dollar figure was less than what Cargyle had formally requested. Cargyle sought two times the Costs recommended by Column 2 of Schedule C of the Rules on the basis that she was largely successful at Trial, the matter was complex, and that all relief awarded by the Court was awarded to Cargyle notwithstanding the fact that Gresl, the Plaintiff/Defendant by Counterclaim, actually initiated the Action.

The Court summarized Cargyle’s arguments for double Costs. Rule 10.29 provides that, generally, a successful party is entitled to Costs from an unsuccessful party subject to the Court’s discretion. Cargyle argued further that Rule 10.31(1) allows the Court to order Gresl to pay: the reasonable and proper Costs incurred by Cargyle to participate in the Action; any amount the Court considers appropriate instead of or in addition to assessed Costs; or some combination of the two. Rule 10.31(3) allows for reasonable and proper Costs to be awarded without reference to Schedule C of the Rules. Further, Rule 10.33 identifies specific factors that may be considered by the Court in addition to any other factors the Court deems relevant to making a Costs award.

The Court decided there was no basis to award double Costs to Cargyle. However, the Court ruled that Gresl’s conduct and lack of credibility throughout the proceedings did warrant an increased Costs award. The Court ultimately awarded Costs of $22,375.

View CanLII Details