This case involved a protracted and contentious divorce litigation between the parties. The litigation primarily concerned the division of property, spousal and child support, and parenting arrangements.

The Court denied the Defendant’s request for enhanced Costs and awarded the Plaintiff Costs based on Column 1 of Schedule C. In so doing, Graesser J. considered the following factors under Rule 10.33:

1. the result of the action and the degree of success of each party;
2. the amount claimed and the amount recovered;
3. the importance of the issues;
4. the complexity of the action;
5. the apportionment of liability;
6. the conduct of a party that tended to shorten the Action;
7. the conduct of a party that was unnecessary or that unnecessarily lengthened or delayed the action or any stage or step of the Action;
8. a party’s denial of or refusal to admit anything that should have been admitted;
9. whether any Application, proceeding or step in an Action was unnecessary, improper or a mistake;
10. a contravention of or non-compliance with these Rules or an Order;
11. whether a party has engaged in misconduct; and
12. any offer of settlement made.

Justice Graesser found that although the Plaintiff did not succeed on all of his claims, he was the successful party on the most significant issues. The Plaintiff’s formal Offer of Settlement on parenting was equaled, justifying costs recovery. Both parties contributed to the litigation’s complexity and duration, and the Defendant’s conduct did not warrant enhanced costs. The Court emphasized the principle of proportionality and practicality in litigation, noting that the Plaintiff’s detailed accounting pursuit was excessive but did not amount to misconduct.