B. Clancy

Following the dismissal of the applicants' claim regarding a failed real estate transaction, the court received written submissions on costs.

The applicants argued each party should bear their own costs, while the respondents sought costs, noting the applicants' failure to accept a generous settlement offer that would have returned their deposit.

The court found the applicants' approach to the litigation patently unreasonable and awarded costs to the respondents.

After scrutinizing the respondents' bill of costs for potential overlap, the court fixed costs payable by the applicants at $27,500 inclusive of disbursements.

Following a decision on five motions where success was evenly divided, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The court reviewed the submissions and the settlement correspondence between counsel, which did not constitute formal Rule 49 offers.

Finding that success remained evenly divided and both parties made good faith attempts to resolve the issues, the court declined to award costs to either party.