S.S.L. v. J.W.W.

S.S.L. v. J.W.W.

The court applied its discretion under Rules 37B and 57(9), concluding it was bound by authority that double costs should not be awarded in custody cases absent egregious conduct; the plaintiff's conduct (offering employment to a third party and failing to disclose assistance) was criticized but not egregious, the offer to settle was not one that ought reasonably to have been accepted, and therefore double costs were refused; ordinary costs awarded to defendant at Scale B with specified exclusions.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1390
Parties
Plaintiff: S.S.L.; Defendant: J.W.W.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Family Law Custody and Mobility (relocation) / Post Trial Costs Decision Following Two Week Trial and Judgment on Custody/mobility
Outcome
Defendant awarded costs at Scale B; double costs not awarded; costs to exclude defendant's unsuccessful application for a custody and access report and exclude costs of his appeal from the order of Master Scarth pronounced March 13, 2009.
Legal Topics
Relocation (mobility), Best Interests of the Child, Offers to Settle, Double Costs, Costs Scale (scale B)
Source Language
English
Family Law Child Custody Civil Procedure Costs Relocation (mobility) Best Interests of the Child Offers to Settle Double Costs Costs Scale (scale B)

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.S.L.

Plaintiff

J.W.W.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Family Law Custody and Mobility (relocation) / Post Trial Costs Decision Following Two Week Trial and Judgment on Custody/mobility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether double costs should be awarded following an offer to settle under Rule 37B
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's conduct was egregious such that double costs are justified
  3. 3 Whether costs should follow the event or be departed from in a custody/mobility matter

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied its discretion under Rules 37B and 57(9), concluding it was bound by authority that double costs should not be awarded in custody cases absent egregious conduct; the plaintiff's conduct (offering employment to a third party and failing to disclose assistance) was criticized but not egregious, the offer to settle was not one that ought reasonably to have been accepted, and therefore double costs were refused; ordinary costs awarded to defendant at Scale B with specified exclusions.

Court Disposition

Defendant awarded costs at Scale B; double costs not awarded; costs to exclude defendant's unsuccessful application for a custody and access report and exclude costs of his appeal from the order of Master Scarth pronounced March 13, 2009.

Orders

  • Defendant entitled to costs of the action at Scale B
  • Costs exclude the defendant's unsuccessful application for a custody and access report