J.M.C. v. Y.S.
- Citation
- 2018 BCSC 1861
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 16 October 2018
- Posture
- Family Law Application for Interest on Assessed Special Costs / In Chambers Application (post Assessment)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- Decision
- 16 October 2018
- Posture
- Family Law Application for Interest on Assessed Special Costs / In Chambers Application (post Assessment)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
Pre-judgment interest on costs is barred by s.2(c) of the Court Order Interest Act; post-judgment interest accrues automatically on a pecuniary judgment (including a certificate for special costs) from the date of pronouncement under ss.7 and 9 of the Act; the post-judgment interest amount should not be included in the Form F72 certificate issued by the registrar.
Court disposition
Pre-judgment interest on the special costs award denied; post-judgment interest on the special costs award granted from the date of pronouncement pursuant to ss.7 and 9 of the Court Order Interest Act; post-judgment interest amount shall not form part of the Form F72 certificate.
Orders
- Pre-judgment interest on the special costs denied.
- Post-judgment interest awarded on the special costs from the date of pronouncement pursuant to Court Order Interest Act ss.7 and 9.
- Post-judgment interest amount shall not be included in the Form F72 certificate.
02
Material facts
Parties
J.M.C.
Claimant Counsel: J. LingY.S.
Respondent Counsel: Self-representedAmounts and remedies
- Special Costs Awarded: CAD 102,672.48
03
Procedural history
Posture
Family Law Application for Interest on Assessed Special Costs / In Chambers Application (post Assessment)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether pre-judgment interest is payable on assessed special costs
- 02
Whether post-judgment interest accrues on a certificate for special costs
- 03
Whether the registrar has jurisdiction to order post-judgment interest on costs
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Claimant sought both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the assessed special costs award.
- Respondent
- Respondent opposed awarding interest, relying on statutory limits and limits on the registrar's authority.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79, s.1(1)
Court must add interest to pecuniary judgments subject to statutory limits.
- 02
Court Order Interest Act, s.2(c)
Court must not award interest under section 1 on interest or on costs.
- 03
Court Order Interest Act, s.7(2)
A pecuniary judgment bears simple interest from the later of the date the judgment is pronounced or the date money is payable under the judgment.
- 04
Court Order Interest Act, s.9(1)
Interest under Part 2 is deemed to be included in the judgment for enforcement purposes.
- 05
Couture v. Oviatt, 2009 BCSC 15 (Master Bouck)
Registrar has no jurisdiction to order that post-judgment interest accrues on costs; post-judgment interest accrues as a matter of law under Part 2.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
Pre-judgment interest on costs is barred by s.2(c) of the Court Order Interest Act; post-judgment interest accrues automatically on a pecuniary judgment (including a certificate for special costs) from the date of pronouncement under ss.7 and 9 of the Act; the post-judgment interest amount should not be included in the Form F72 certificate issued by the registrar.
Obiter and limits
- Registrar has no jurisdiction to order post-judgment interest on costs (Couture v. Oviatt, 2009 BCSC 15).
- Whether issuance of an offer to settle is equivalent to the judgment is a distinct question not decided here.
Court disposition
Pre-judgment interest on the special costs award denied; post-judgment interest on the special costs award granted from the date of pronouncement pursuant to ss.7 and 9 of the Court Order Interest Act; post-judgment interest amount shall not form part of the Form F72 certificate.
- Pre-judgment interest on the special costs denied.
- Post-judgment interest awarded on the special costs from the date of pronouncement pursuant to Court Order Interest Act ss.7 and 9.
- Post-judgment interest amount shall not be included in the Form F72 certificate.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of British Columbia · 16 October 2018
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Judgment· 16 October 2018
2018 BCSC 1861 J.M.C. v. Y.S.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: J.M.C. v. Y.S., 2018 BCSC 1861 Date: 20181016 Docket: E042844 Registry: New Westminster Between: J.M.C. Claimant And Y.S. Respondent Corrected Decision: The names of the Claimant and Respondent have been initialized throughout this decision on October 31, 2018. Before: District Registrar Nielsen Oral Reasons for Decision In Chambers Counsel for the Claimant: J. Ling Appearing on her own behalf: Y. S. Place and Date of Hearing: New Westminster, B.C. October 16, 2018 Place and Date of Decision: New Westminster, B.C. October 16, 2018 [1] THE COURT: This is an application for pre and post-judgment interest on the award of special costs. This matter involved a contentious family law case in which property division, custody, access, and parenting rights were at issue. [2] The family law case was resolved by Mr. Justice Bernard by court order dated October 1, 2015, filed June 20, 2016. The court's reasons for judgment are cited at J.M.C. v. Y.S, 2015 BCSC 1770. [3] During the course of the family law case, the respondent's conduct was found by the court to be scandalous and outrageous, and by order dated January 16, 2017, filed July 17, 2017, the court ordered that special costs were to be assessed by the registrar. The assessment of special costs took place over five days. The special costs were assessed and the claimant was awarded
$102,672.48. The reasons for decision regarding the assessment of special costs is cited at J.M.C. v. Y.S., 2018 BCSC 915. [4] The reference to the registrar to assess special costs was specific. There was no reference made to either pre-judgment or post-judgment interest. [5] The Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79, provides in s. 1(1): Subject to section 2, a court must add to a pecuniary judgment an amount of interest calculated on the amount ordered to be paid at a rate the court considers appropriate in the circumstances from the date on which the cause of action arose to the date of the order. [6] Section 1 of the Court Order Interest Act is subject to s.
2. Section 2(c) of the Court Order Interest Act provides: The court must not award interest under section 1 ... (c) on interest or on costs ... [7] Pre-judgment interest on costs may not be awarded and, in my view, that effectively disposes of the issue of the claim for pre-judgment interest. [8] Part 2 of the Court Order Interest Act deals with post-judgment interest. Section 7(2) provides that: A pecuniary judgment bears simple interest from the later of the date the judgment is pronounced or the date money is payable under the judgment. [9] Section 9(1) of the Court Order Interest Act provides, in part: Interest under this Part is deemed to be included in the judgment for enforcement purposes. [10] Therefore, to the extent that a certificate for special costs is a judgment for the purposes of the Court Order Interest Act, interest under Part 2 of the Act would follow, as a matter of law, from the time of pronouncement. [11] This issue was canvassed by Master Bouck in Couture v. Oviatt, 2009 BCSC 15, wherein she states at paragraph 13: I have concluded that the registrar has no jurisdiction to "order" that post-judgment interest accrues on costs. Post-judgment interest accrues on a judgment as a matter of law as stipulated in Part 2 of the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c, 79. Whether the issuance of an offer to settle is equivalent to the judgment or order of the
court is a question that I need not (and should not) decide here. The defendants may choose to include post-judgment interest when demanding payment of their costs from the plaintiff. However, the registrar has no authority to decide whether the amount claimed by the defendants is correct. I note that Boyd, J. in Syed v. Randhawa commented that she "was not satisfied that a taxation hearing is necessarily the proper forum" for the determination of a party's entitlement to interest on a costs judgment. [12] So by way of disposition, the claimant is not entitled to pre-judgment interest on the special costs assessed by operation of s. 2(c) of the Court Order Interest Act. [13] The claimant is entitled to post-judgment interest on the special costs award from the date of pronouncement pursuant to sections 7 and 9 of the Court Order Interest Act. However, that amount is not to form part of the certificate in Form F72. "District Registrar Nielsen"
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.