PoCo Building Supplies v. Borysiak

PoCo Building Supplies v. Borysiak

Rule 37 does not automatically entitle a successful defendant to double costs where the court, exercising its discretion under Rule 57(9) and inherent jurisdiction, is satisfied that false or misleading evidence was given; the earlier costs direction remains, and the plaintiff is entitled to costs of this application.

Citation
2004 BCSC 216
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Port Coquitlam Building Supplies Ltd.; Defendant/applicant: Honorata Borysiak
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Contract (debt for Building Supplies) / Post Trial Costs Application
Outcome
Defendant's request to alter the earlier costs decision denied; plaintiff awarded costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Offer to Settle (rule 37), Costs Discretion (rule 57(9)), Credibility and False Evidence, Agency
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Evidence Offer to Settle (rule 37) Costs Discretion (rule 57(9)) Credibility and False Evidence Agency

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Port Coquitlam Building Supplies Ltd.

Plaintiff/respondent

Honorata Borysiak

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Contract (debt for Building Supplies) / Post Trial Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defendant who made an Offer to Settle under Rule 37 is automatically entitled to double costs
  2. 2 Whether prior false or knowingly untrue evidence justifies denial of costs despite triggering Rule 37
  3. 3 Whether Rule 37 ousts the court's inherent jurisdiction and discretion under Rule 57(9) to award or deny costs

Ratio Decidendi

Rule 37 does not automatically entitle a successful defendant to double costs where the court, exercising its discretion under Rule 57(9) and inherent jurisdiction, is satisfied that false or misleading evidence was given; the earlier costs direction remains, and the plaintiff is entitled to costs of this application.

Court Disposition

Defendant's request to alter the earlier costs decision denied; plaintiff awarded costs of the application.

Orders

  • Defendant's application to vary the earlier costs decision is dismissed.
  • Plaintiff is awarded costs of this application.