Costs consequences of failure to accept offer

[firhill]

Over the last two months I've been attempting to educate myself, to the best of my ability, on the Ontario Family Court Rules and this forum with it's insightful posters has been a Godsend.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to wrap my head around Rule 18, sub-rule 14:

COSTS CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ACCEPT OFFER

A party who makes an offer is, unless the court orders otherwise, entitled to costs to the date the offer was served and full recovery of costs from that date, if the following conditions are met:

1. If the offer relates to a motion, it is made at least one day before the motion date.

2. If the offer relates to a trial or the hearing of a step other than a motion, it is made at least seven days before the trial or hearing date.

3. The offer does not expire and is not withdrawn before the hearing starts.

4. The offer is not accepted.

5. The party who made the offer obtains an order that is as favourable as or more favourable than the offer. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 18 (14).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I interpreting the rule correctly in understanding that, as long as the conditions are met, the party making the offer to settle can ask for costs no matter how ridiculous the offer may seem?

Also, can anyone explain what the significance or difference is between entitled to costs to the date and full recovery of costs from that date means.

Thanks!!!!!!

[FB_]

I am also interested to learn more about this.

I have offered several things which I consider to be very fair and none of them were accepted. My request for a counter offer was also completely ignored. I am now filing with the courts.

Edit: Offer was sent "Without Prejudice" does that matter?

[WorkingDAD]

Over the last two months I've been attempting to educate myself, to the best of my ability, on the Ontario Family Court Rules and this forum with it's insightful posters has been a Godsend.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to wrap my head around Rule 18, sub-rule 14:

COSTS CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO ACCEPT OFFER

A party who makes an offer is, unless the court orders otherwise, entitled to costs to the date the offer was served and full recovery of costs from that date, if the following conditions are met:

1. If the offer relates to a motion, it is made at least one day before the motion date.

2. If the offer relates to a trial or the hearing of a step other than a motion, it is made at least seven days before the trial or hearing date.

3. The offer does not expire and is not withdrawn before the hearing starts.

4. The offer is not accepted.

5. The party who made the offer obtains an order that is as favourable as or more favourable than the offer. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 18 (14).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I interpreting the rule correctly in understanding that, as long as the conditions are met, the party making the offer to settle can ask for costs no matter how ridiculous the offer may seem?

Also, can anyone explain what the significance or difference is between entitled to costs to the date and full recovery of costs from that date means.

Thanks!!!!!!

that not that easy. Try to read this. It may answer if not all but at least some of your questions.

and this

[frustratedwithex]

I am also interested to learn more about this.

I have offered several things which I consider to be very fair and none of them were accepted. My request for a counter offer was also completely ignored. I am now filing with the courts.

Edit: Offer was sent "Without Prejudice" does that matter?

I believe your timing is off.

These offers are considered for costs once you have filed, not before.

I also think you need to add, "this is written on a "Without Prejudice Except to costs" basis and may be shown when speaking to costs".

[FB_]

I believe your timing is off.

These offers are considered for costs once you have filed, not before.

I also think you need to add, "this is written on a "Without Prejudice Except to costs" basis and may be shown when speaking to costs".

Thanks.

I have tried to settle out of court for the last year and that has gotten me no where. I am now filing with the court as my stbx is just saying no to everything and will not counter offer.

I obviously would like to recover a portion of the costs if that's at all possible.

I need to do more reading about what I'm getting myself into.

[frustratedwithex]

I don't think you will be able to recover any of the costs before trial. Perhaps WorkingDad can answer that for you.

When you are reading case-law decisions be very careful how you are interpreting the ruling. Most of the awards for costs are nil. Because the outcome of the case has mixed results, meaning some of what the plaintiff asked for was awarded, and some of what the defendant asked for was awarded, neither one of them were awarded costs.

Do not go into litigation thinking you will recover anything.

[FB_]

I have zero expectations on recovering anything.

Like they say "Why is divorce so expensive. Because its worth it"

[WorkingDAD]

I don't think you will be able to recover any of the costs before trial. Perhaps WorkingDad can answer that for you.

When you are reading case-law decisions be very careful how you are interpreting the ruling. Most of the awards for costs are nil. Because the outcome of the case has mixed results, meaning some of what the plaintiff asked for was awarded, and some of what the defendant asked for was awarded, neither one of them were awarded costs.

Do not go into litigation thinking you will recover anything.

just read second link what I provided page 11

Recoverability of Costs at Trial from Previous Steps in Case

Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules provides that the judge who deals with a
step in a case shall decide who, if anyone, is entitled to costs. It is well established that in order to obtain costs for prior steps, there must be an Order reserving those costs to the trial judge, or to the motions judge. A trial judge or motions judge is not entitled to make an award for costs covering prior steps such as Case Conferences and Settlement Conferences. Those prior steps are not within the judge‟s discretion particularly where there was no Order as to costs or the issue of costs was not addressed

[Rioe]

5. The party who made the offer obtains an order that is as favourable as or more favourable than the offer. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 18 (14).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I interpreting the rule correctly in understanding that, as long as the conditions are met, the party making the offer to settle can ask for costs no matter how ridiculous the offer may seem!

Point #5 above is the critical one. The resulting court order must be as good as or better than the offer made. So if you made a reasonable offer that was rejected, and the judge ordered something similar or even more in your favour, you can reasonably expect the court costs you incurred to get that order to be paid by your ex. The idea is that the ex could have avoided court entirely just by accepting the offer in the first place.

So no, a ridiculous offer would not result in costs being awarded. Unless the judge ended up making an equally ridiculous order.

[firhill]

that not that easy. Try to read this. It may answer if not all but at least some of your questions.

and this

Good stuff WD....thanks for the very informative links

Point #5 above is the critical one. The resulting court order must be as good as or better than the offer made. So if you made a reasonable offer that was rejected, and the judge ordered something similar or even more in your favour, you can reasonably expect the court costs you incurred to get that order to be paid by your ex. The idea is that the ex could have avoided court entirely just by accepting the offer in the first place.

So no, a ridiculous offer would not result in costs being awarded. Unless the judge ended up making an equally ridiculous order.

Thanks Rioe

Hopefully I get the CC judge for any (necessary) future conference/trial as I probably wouldn't accept anything less than what she stated she would order if she were ruling on the case the day of the CC.

I guess when the settlement offer comes, I'll see how it stacks up against both what I asked for and what the judge said at CC, and go from there.

[WorkingDAD]

[QUOTE=firhill;104395]Good stuff WD....thanks for the very informative links



Thanks Rioe

Hopefully I get the CC judge for any (necessary) future conference/trial as I probably wouldn't accept anything less than what she stated she would order if she were ruling on the case the day of the CC.

I would not hope for that. CC Judge in no way will be your Trial Judge...

I guess when the settlement offer comes, I'll see how it stacks up against both what I asked for and what the judge said at CC, and go from there.

It does not really matter what judge say during CC or SC. What is matter for cost order is what order judge will make and how close it will be to offer.

[Tayken]

I would not hope for that. CC Judge in no way will be your Trial Judge...

In accordance with the Rule 17 of the Family Law Rules subrule (24) "A judge who conducts a settlement conference about an issue shall not hear the issue, except as subrule (25) provides. O. Reg. 91/03, s. 6 (4)."

I think Rule 17.(24) applies and you are right WorkingDad that the CC judge cannot preside over a motion or trial in the matter. I could be wrong on the interpretation of the Rules though as they explicitly state only "Settlement Conference".

[firhill]

Not what I wanted to hear...but that's why I love this place as I learn something new every day.