K.G. v. D.G.

K.G. v. D.G.

The claimant was substantially successful because she prevailed on the most important dispute to the parties—the motion to not set aside the separation agreement—and also defeated the counselling order; the s.211 report was ordered but was of lesser importance and some testimony on it was unnecessary; the November 24, 2022 offer was not considered because it did not address the central issue, specifically identified a particular report author, and was late; accordingly claimant is entitled to costs of the action to be assessed under Appendix B for 10 trial days.

Citation
2024 BCSC 379
Parties
Claimant: K.G.; Respondent: D.G.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
16 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Family Law Action / Post‑trial Costs Hearing (oral Reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Claimant awarded costs of the action.
Legal Topics
Separation Agreement Validity, Section 211 Report, Counselling Orders, Offer to Settle (rule 11‑1), Costs Assessment, Substantial Success
Source Language
English
Family Law Civil Procedure Costs Separation Agreement Validity Section 211 Report Counselling Orders Offer to Settle (rule 11‑1) Costs Assessment +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.G.

Claimant

D.G.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Action / Post‑trial Costs Hearing (oral Reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the July 23, 2019 separation agreement should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether a s. 211 report should be ordered
  3. 3 Whether the parties and children should be ordered to attend counselling with Alyson Jones Agency

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was substantially successful because she prevailed on the most important dispute to the parties—the motion to not set aside the separation agreement—and also defeated the counselling order; the s.211 report was ordered but was of lesser importance and some testimony on it was unnecessary; the November 24, 2022 offer was not considered because it did not address the central issue, specifically identified a particular report author, and was late; accordingly claimant is entitled to costs of the action to be assessed under Appendix B for 10 trial days.

Court Disposition

Claimant awarded costs of the action.

Orders

  • Claimant to have her costs of the action to be assessed as a matter of ordinary difficulty under Appendix B.
  • Number of trial days to be used in the assessment: 10.