Following a Trial, the parties wrote to the Court regarding Costs. The Plaintiff acknowledged that the Defendant was more successful, but sought Costs on the basis that, among other reasons, the Defendant’s conduct delayed the Action and that he had made a formal offer under the Rules prior to the Trial (the 2022 Offer), which contained better terms than the result received.

The Court noted that it had considerable discretion in setting reasonable and proper Costs pursuant to Rules 10.29, 10.31, and 10.33, and went on to consider Costs principles generally and in the family law context. The Court rejected that the Plaintiff had established that he received a result that was “equal to or more favourable” than the 2022 Offer at Trial, as contemplated by Rule 4.29. The Court, however, agreed that the Defendant’s conduct throughout the litigation was a factor to consider in assessing Costs. After considering the circumstances, including that the Defendant was self-represented for most of the Action, the Court held that both parties would bear their own Costs of the Action.