The court addressed costs following a settlement in a family law equalization payment dispute.
The applicant had sought an unequal division, ultimately agreeing to an $80,000 equalization payment to the respondent.
Both parties sought costs, alleging unreasonableness by the other.
The court, applying the Courts of Justice Act and Family Law Rules, found it difficult to determine a "successful party" or assess reasonableness retrospectively in a settled matter without objective benchmarks.
Citing Witherspoon v. Witherspoon and Talbot v. Talbot, the court emphasized that post-settlement cost claims are problematic and that settlement implies compromise.
No costs were awarded, with each party bearing their own.
