Following a Trial involving claims arising from the end of a common-law relationship, the Court was asked to determine Costs in light of the parties’ partial successes and competing settlement offers. The Plaintiff was unsuccessful on her claim for retroactive child support, but succeeded in obtaining time-limited, declining partner support and a modest unequal division of family property. The Defendant, while successful in defending the child support issue, opposed the extent of the relief granted on the other claims. Both parties argued they were largely successful, and both referred to offers exchanged during the litigation as relevant to the issue of Costs.

Justice Little applied Rule 10.33, which outlines the factors to be considered in exercising discretion over costs. On the issue of success, the Court found that although the Plaintiff did not achieve the full extent of her claims, she was successful on two out of the three heads of relief—partner support and property division. The Court also noted that the child support claim, while ultimately unsuccessful, was not frivolous, given the nature and length of the parties’ relationship.

In evaluating the amounts claimed and recovered, the Court observed that the Plaintiff had sought high-end guideline partner support but was awarded a lower amount, and her property claim resulted in only a portion of the estimated increase in value of the shared home. Despite this, Little J. found that the overall judgment exceeded the Defendant’s best settlement offer. While the Defendant argued that his final offer came close to the after-tax value of the Judgment, the Court declined to adjust for tax given the lack of clear evidence. The Court also acknowledged that accepting the Defendant’s last offer would have saved a significant amount of litigation time, but it did not find that the Plaintiff had acted unreasonably in rejecting it.

Justice Little considered the importance of the issues to both parties and noted that the matter was not unusually complex for a case involving common-law separation. The Court also found no conduct by either party that materially shortened or prolonged the proceedings.

In awarding Costs, the Court declined the Plaintiff’s request for 75% of her legal fees. Instead, applying guidance from McAllister v Calgary (City), 2021 ABCA 25, the Court awarded 40% of her actual legal fees, recognizing her partial success and the reasonableness of the last offer she declined. This resulted in a fee award of $13,300, plus $1,960 in disbursements.