This endorsement concerns the costs of a prior motion where the respondent sought a pension valuation, which the applicant resisted.
The court had previously ruled in favour of the applicant.
The judge found neither party's position on the underlying motion to be substantially unreasonable.
The decision emphasizes that offers to settle binary issues, where a true compromise is not possible, should not be given significant weight in determining costs.
Despite the applicant achieving a result as favourable as their offer, full indemnity costs were not awarded.
The court found the applicant's counsel dockets reasonable and ordered the respondent to pay $3,250 in all-inclusive costs to the applicant.
