S.A.M. v. J.A.M.

S.A.M. v. J.A.M.

Claimant's asserted financial hardship did not justify denying costs; respondent was wholly successful and his August 25, 2016 offer was superior to the hearing result and ought to have been accepted, therefore respondent is awarded costs at Scale B assessed as double from the date the offer was received; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2017 BCSC 2348
Parties
Claimant: S.A.M.; Respondent: J.A.M.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Family Law Spousal Support Review and Variance; Costs Application / Costs Hearing Reasons for Judgment on Costs
Outcome
Respondent awarded costs; request for additional set-off denied
Legal Topics
Spousal Support, Costs, Offer to Settle, Double Costs, Set Off, Financial Hardship, Imputation of Income
Source Language
english
Family Law Civil Procedure Spousal Support Costs Offer to Settle Double Costs Set Off Financial Hardship +1 more

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 8 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.A.M.

Claimant

J.A.M.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Family Law Spousal Support Review and Variance; Costs Application / Costs Hearing Reasons for Judgment on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent entitled to costs for two family law applications
  2. 2 Whether double costs should be awarded from date of respondent's offer to settle (August 25, 2016)
  3. 3 Whether respondent may obtain a set-off against claimant's spousal support to collect his costs

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant's asserted financial hardship did not justify denying costs; respondent was wholly successful and his August 25, 2016 offer was superior to the hearing result and ought to have been accepted, therefore respondent is awarded costs at Scale B assessed as double from the date the offer was received; the requested additional set-off of $340 against spousal support to collect costs was unreasonable and is denied.

Court Disposition

Respondent awarded costs; request for additional set-off denied

Orders

  • Respondent awarded his costs of both applications at Scale B assessed as double costs from August 25, 2016 (date respondent's offer to settle was received by claimant)
  • Respondent's request for a set-off of his costs award against the claimant's spousal support is denied