Cost Orders

[Nadia]

If a party has had three seperate cost orders awarded against them over the past two years and now has brought forward yet another motion, should one draw attention to the cost orders in arguing how unreasonable this person has been historically?

Cost orders were awarded each time primarily because Offers to Settle were put on the table and rejected. Offers to Settle were very reasonable and were genuine efforts to settle outside of court, thereby avoiding costly litigation for both parties. But the opposing party needed to "win" and was convinced that he would receive the full relief he was seeking.

To put it another way, what impact (if any) does the award of cost orders against one party on three seperate occasions by three seperate justices have on how that party might be viewed by the fourth judge?

Obviously, I intend to respond to the lengthy motion material itself, but I was just wondering if this should also be included somewhere. Is there any value in drawing attention to this pattern of cost orders being awarded in the responding affidavit?

[WorkingDAD]

If a party has had three seperate cost orders awarded against them over the past two years and now has brought forward yet another motion, should one draw attention to the cost orders in arguing how unreasonable this person has been historically?

Cost orders were awarded each time primarily because Offers to Settle were put on the table and rejected. Offers to Settle were very reasonable and were genuine efforts to settle outside of court, thereby avoiding costly litigation for both parties. But the opposing party needed to "win" and was convinced that he would receive the full relief he was seeking.

To put it another way, what impact (if any) does the award of cost orders against one party on three seperate occasions by three seperate justices have on how that party might be viewed by the fourth judge?

Obviously, I intend to respond to the lengthy motion material itself, but I was just wondering if this should also be included somewhere. Is there any value in drawing attention to this pattern of cost orders being awarded in the responding affidavit?

Rule 1(8)

FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULES OR OBEY ORDER

(8) The court may deal with a failure to follow these rules, or a failure to obey an order in the case or a related case, by making any order that it considers necessary for a just determination of the matter, on any conditions that the court considers appropriate, including,
(a) an order for costs;
(b) an order dismissing a claim made by a party who has wilfully failed to follow the rules or obey the order. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 1 (8).

Rule 14(23)

FAILURE TO OBEY ORDER MADE ON MOTION

(23) A party who does not obey an order that was made on motion is not entitled to any further order from the court unless the court orders that this subrule does not apply, and the court may on motion, in addition to any other remedy allowed under these rules,
(a) dismiss the party’s case or strike out the party’s answer or any other document filed by the party;
(b) postpone the trial or any other step in the case;
(c) make any other order that is appropriate, including an order for costs. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 14 (23); O. Reg. 89/04, s. 6 (7).

that pretty much what I would ask court.

WD

[SingingDad]

The the other party pay the costs or are they still outstanding?