This was a Costs Decision addressing whether parties to an agreement can claim contract-based double solicitor-client Costs against each other related to the implementation of the agreement and, if not, whether some other Costs Award was warranted.

The parties separated in February 2021 and entered into a Divorce & Property Contract (the ”Agreement”) in February 2023. The Agreement dealt with, among other things, the sharing of the husband’s employment pension (the “Plan”). The parties each executed a T2220E form for the Plan transfer, which was rejected by the employer’s insurance company plan administrator (the “Administrator”). Subsequently, the parties completed a T2151 form as advised by the Administrator, but this form was also rejected due to missing information. Despite the parties' attempts to provide the correct information to the Administrator, they received a Plan value with an incorrect accrual end date.

The wife filed an Application seeking various Orders related to the Plan transfer and double Costs on a solicitor-client basis based on a clause in the Agreement, which provided that if one party breached the contract and enforcement was needed by the other party, the breaching party must cover all associated enforcement costs on a double solicitor-client basis (the “Costs Provision”). In contrast, the husband sought $20,000 for his time spent on the matter.

The Court first addressed whether the wife could claim double solicitor-client Costs against the husband. Considering the principles of contractual interpretation, the Court interpreted the Agreement and determined that the purpose of the Costs Provision was to encourage efficient and cooperative implementation of the Agreement. The Court found that the wife’s Application did not engage the “enforcement” of clauses of the Agreement and denied her claim for double solicitor-client Costs. Additionally, the Court expressed doubt about the enforceability of the Costs Provision but did not make any findings on this issue.

After denying the husband’s claim of $20,000 in compensation because he failed to provide evidence to justify his position, the Court then determined the appropriate Costs Award regarding the wife’s Application.

The Court considered the general Costs principles under Rules 10.29, 10.31, and 10.33 and held that neither party should be entitled to Costs because: (1) the wife did not obtain the relief she sought; (2) much of the Court intervention was required because of the Administrator’s uncooperative approach to this matter; (3) much of the Costs associated with the Plan transfer could have been avoided had the wife brought her Application immediately upon learning that the Administrator would not cooperate regarding the Plan transfer, rather than engaging in protracted and unproductive communications with the husband; (4) the husband, being a self-represented litigant, was not entitled to any solicitor-client Costs except in appropriate circumstances, which the Court found did not exist in this case.

Therefore, both parties were ordered to bear their own Costs.