The Applicant sought $44,055 in Costs following a two-day Streamlined Trial, which included partial indemnification under Column 2 of Schedule C, full indemnity of disbursements, and double Costs for an alleged Formal Offer. The Respondent opposed any award of Costs, arguing that the Trial Decision was silent on Costs and had been appealed.

Justice Oviatt confirmed that the Court retains broad discretion to award Costs even when a Trial Judgment is silent, citing the presumption under Rule 10.29 that a successful party is entitled to Costs, and the authority under Rule 10.30(c) to award Costs after judgment. The Court also noted that an outstanding Appeal does not stay the finalization of Costs absent a Stay Order.

In assessing quantum, Justice Oviatt referred to Rule 10.31(1), observing that Costs are intended to provide partial, not full, indemnity. Applying the factors in Rule 10.33, the Court considered proportionality, the degree of success, importance of the issues, complexity, and the parties’ conduct. Although the matter was high-conflict, it was not particularly complex.

The Applicant was self-represented at Trial, as such she was not entitled to full indemnification for her claimed legal expenses. Justice Oviatt held that routinely awarding Costs to self‑represented litigants risks creating a disproportionate windfall. However, as the Applicant had counsel for certain pre-Trial steps, including preparation of the streamlined Trial Order, the Court found it appropriate to award a lump-sum of $1,500.

Finally, Justice Oviatt addressed the claim for double Costs pursuant to Rule 4.29. To engage the Rule, the Applicant was required to provide evidence of the contents of a valid Rule 4.24 Formal Offer that was less than the outcome at Trial. No such evidence was filed, and the purported offer appeared to relate to property division, which was not at issue in the Trial. Accordingly, the request for double Costs was dismissed.