Does this mean cost were awarded?

[danzuchy]

My friend who is self repped got a judgement that he partially lost. In the judgement it states " if the parties cannot agree on costs....cost submissions may be made...".
Does that mean he will eventually have to pay cost?

[ddol1]

yes, at least some. What is asked is a submissions that quickly puts in front of the judge what you would like as far as costs, what you offer to pay? What you think you should not pay - and most important why! I f the court feels that both sides were justified in going to court, the offers to settle before hand the judge could just rule each pays thier own.

This is a very close I believe, perhaps someone else who fully understands the process can add or correct the above.

[Tayken]

My friend who is self repped got a judgement that he partially lost. In the judgement it states " if the parties cannot agree on costs....cost submissions may be made...".
Does that mean he will eventually have to pay cost?

If your friend is represented the solicitor will deal with the issues on cost submissions. Generally this means that the judge is expecting the parties to sort out "costs" and if they can't the judge will consider costs on the motion and make the decision.

Costs are to teach people, like your friend, who take things to court that should not have been to STOP doing it.

Good Luck!
Tayken

[danzuchy]

So I take it my friend will be Paying costs. Why would a judge ask if he isn't going to award it?

[ddol1]

if you read cases on canlII which are final court decisions this is mentioned often. Why, because the judge is allowing due process if nothing else. As Tayken said, the lawyers will submit their costs for each of you.... from there it will be a case of percentage of "at fault" translated into dollars. Both lawyers get paid. Worst case 100% to your friend - partially lost???? so anywhere from 100% to say 1/3 to "her" 2/3 to him of both lawyers fees. If both of them should have settled then both were equally responsable. It is all about going to court for things that could have been settled under the family law act or the divorce act.

If he doesn't have the cash then he will have to work out a repayment plan if he doesn't have assets that can be sold to cover what is owed. This is the chance we take when we are stubborn and push all the way to the end. Last thing II will add, if the other party put a reasonable offer on the table and your friend turned it down, ultimately the court decided equal or better to the other party (i.e. your friend should have settled) then my understanding is the issue of costs will go much harder on your friend.

Tayken's moral of this story is clear, teach and make an example of/to those people to deter the waste of valuable court time.

To your friend,
Also Good Luck!