The parties settled all outstanding issues in their family litigation except for costs.
The respondent sought costs, arguing success based on settlement offers and the applicant's unreasonable behaviour.
The applicant argued against awarding costs, or alternatively, for costs in her favour, citing the respondent's unreasonable behaviour.
The court examined the jurisprudence on awarding costs after a global settlement, contrasting approaches that encourage summary determination of costs post-settlement with those that caution against it due to the difficulty in assessing "success" without judicial fact-finding.
Adopting the latter view, the court held that costs should not be awarded after a settlement unless there are compelling reasons, such as clear capitulation or unreasonable behaviour.
Upon review of the parties' offers and conduct, the court found no compelling circumstances to justify a costs award, noting that the settlement reflected divided success and compromise.
Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs for the proceeding, including the costs submissions.
