C.C.R. v D.V.R.

C.C.R. v D.V.R.

The defendant was substantially successful and is therefore awarded costs; the offer to settle was not a valid Form 64 offer under Rule 37 because its terms were inconsistent with Rule 37(22)/(22.1) (the offer promised parties bear their own costs yet referenced Rule 37), so Rule 37 could not be invoked to obtain...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2004 BCSC 214
Parties
PLAINTIFF: C.C.R.; DEFENDANT: D.V.R.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 February 2004
Procedural Posture
Family Law Custody and Costs / Costs Application After Three Day Custody Trial (reasons for Judgment as to Costs)
Outcome
Defendant awarded normal costs; double costs under Rule 37 denied because offer was not a valid Form 64 invocation of Rule 37; costs assessed on Scale 3 including this application.
Legal Topics
Entitlement to Costs, Offer to Settle/form 64, Rule 37 and Rule 37(22.1), Double Costs, Discretion for Hardship
Source Language
english
Family Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Entitlement to Costs Offer to Settle/form 64 Rule 37 and Rule 37(22.1) Double Costs Discretion for Hardship

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C.C.R.

PLAINTIFF

D.V.R.

DEFENDANT

Procedural Posture

Family Law Custody and Costs / Costs Application After Three Day Custody Trial (reasons for Judgment as to Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant entitled to costs as substantially successful party
  2. 2 Whether defendant's offer to settle complied with Form 64 and invoked Rule 37
  3. 3 Whether defendant entitled to double costs from date of delivery of the offer

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant was substantially successful and is therefore awarded costs; the offer to settle was not a valid Form 64 offer under Rule 37 because its terms were inconsistent with Rule 37(22)/(22.1) (the offer promised parties bear their own costs yet referenced Rule 37), so Rule 37 could not be invoked to obtain double costs from the offer's delivery date; financial hardship of the plaintiff did not justify denying costs.

Court Disposition

Defendant awarded normal costs; double costs under Rule 37 denied because offer was not a valid Form 64 invocation of Rule 37; costs assessed on Scale 3 including this application.

Orders

  • Defendant awarded costs on Scale 3, including the costs of this application.