Gardiner v. Gardiner
The court withheld costs from the successful Petitioner because the trial judge found significant credibility failings and conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings; under the discretionary framework of the Civil Procedure Rules and relevant case law those factors justified denying costs, rendering consideration of the offers unnecessary to the outcome.
- Citation
- 2002 NSSF 47
- Parties
- Petitioner: Cheryl Lynn Gardiner; Respondent: Gregory Alan Gardiner
- Court
- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 5 October 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce / Matrimonial Cause / Costs Decision Post Trial
- Outcome
- Petitioner denied costs.
- Legal Topics
- Offers to Settle, Discretionary Costs, Credibility and Vexatious Conduct, In Loco Parentis
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cheryl Lynn Gardiner
Petitioner
Gregory Alan Gardiner
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce / Matrimonial Cause / Costs Decision Post Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the successful petitioner is entitled to costs
- 2 Whether offers to settle under the Civil Procedure Rules affect costs
- 3 Whether the petitioner’s credibility and conduct warranted denial of costs
Ratio Decidendi
The court withheld costs from the successful Petitioner because the trial judge found significant credibility failings and conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings; under the discretionary framework of the Civil Procedure Rules and relevant case law those factors justified denying costs, rendering consideration of the offers unnecessary to the outcome.
Court Disposition
Petitioner denied costs.
Orders
- No costs awarded to the Petitioner; parties to bear their own costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment