The Respondent, having been successful on Appeal, sought an enhanced Costs Award. The Respondent argued that she was entitled to an enhanced Costs Award primarily due to her service of Calderbank settlement offers which were not accepted by the Appellant.

The Court observed that, pursuant to Rules 10.31 and 14.88(2), Costs Awards are subject to broad discretion, the exercise of which is guided by the considerations listed under Rule 10.33(1). The Court held that Calderbank letters do not result in the automatic or presumed doubling of Costs Awards.

In the circumstances of this case, the Court awarded Costs under Column 1 of Schedule C. The Court declined to award enhanced Costs primarily because the Calderbank offer did not represent a genuine compromise by the Respondent, and  because it was served and expired prior to the Appellant’s Notice of Appeal being filed. Neither Party had incurred any claimable Costs prior to the offer’s expiry.