2 total
Substantial indemnity costs denied as Rule 49 offer was non-compliant and conduct was not reprehensible.
Following the dismissal of the moving party's motion, the responding party sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on a Rule 49 offer to settle and allegations of improper conduct.
The court found that the offer to settle did not strictly comply with Rule 49.10(1) because it included undeterminable costs, and the moving party's conduct was not reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous.
Applying the principles of fair and reasonable costs, the court reduced the responding party's claimed hours for preparation and awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis fixed at $27,000.
Appeal dismissed; evidence supported finding that wife satisfactorily accounted for power of attorney transactions.
The appellants appealed a final order dealing with the passing of accounts taken pursuant to powers of attorney.
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence supported the motion judge's finding that the respondent wife had satisfactorily accounted to her husband during his lifetime for all transactions executed under the powers of attorney, and that the husband was entitled to and did bestow gifts on her.
The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,000.
