OFFREY v OFFREY

The Court considered the appropriate costs Award following the Trial of a family law matter. The Plaintiff sought solicitor-client costs, or alternatively enhanced costs, based on the conduct of the Defendant and his counsel throughout the litigation.

The Court held that, as the substantially successful party, the Plaintiff was presumptively entitled to costs pursuant to Rule 10.29. Justice Mandziuk emphasized that courts retain broad discretion to set costs under Rules 10.29, 10.31, and 10.33.

Justice Mandziuk held that solicitor-client costs were not available. The Court found the Defendant had prolonged and complicated the proceedings unnecessarily by proliferating irrelevant records and conducting excessive questioning on irrelevant issues. However, Justice Mandziuk also considered that the Defendant's counsel had demonstrated reasonable concessions and extensive cooperation with the Plaintiff’s counsel during Trial preparation. There was nothing to suggest the actions of the Defendant and his counsel were reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous so as to attract the exceptional remedy of solicitor-client costs.

The Court also found that enhanced costs were not appropriate. Justice Mandziuk reiterated that enhanced costs are awarded only when a litigant’s conduct falls below the standard expected of a responsible litigant. Despite the Defendant's unreasonable positions on some issues, the Defendant's conduct did not meet this threshold. There was no evidence of the types of misconduct typically justifying enhanced costs, such as failure to observe time limits under the Rules, deception, unsubstantiated fraud allegations, or the refusal of reasonable formal offers on the record.

Ultimately, the Court awarded costs pursuant to Column 3 of Schedule C, reflecting the monetary amount at stake in the litigation.

The Court further exercised its discretion to award a lump sum of $2,500 to account for the Defendant's late abandonment of his spousal support claim during final argument. While costs are not usually apportioned on an issue-by-issue basis, the Court found it appropriate to account for the Plaintiff’s costs to address that claim.

However, Justice Mandziuk did not award any additional costs for a vacated Emergency Protection Order ("EPO") since the EPO was both obtained and vacated on reasonable grounds. Similarly, no costs were awarded in relation to a Restraining Order Application between the parties since the Application was resolved by consent without a Hearing.