W.R. Kerr

Following a successful motion by certain defendants to enforce a settlement agreement, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The moving defendants sought full indemnity costs, arguing that the plaintiffs’ conduct throughout the proceeding justified such an award.

The court held that the plaintiffs acted unreasonably in refusing to acknowledge a binding settlement even after obtaining legal advice, which unnecessarily required the motion.

Considering the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court ordered substantial indemnity costs rather than full indemnity.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the successful moving defendants.

The moving defendants sought judgment under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to enforce a settlement allegedly accepted by the self-represented plaintiffs in a long‑running right‑of‑way dispute.

The plaintiffs had emailed questions about the offer and later returned a signed acceptance selecting one of two settlement options concerning the right‑of‑way location.

They later argued no agreement had been reached because their earlier email raised unresolved issues about the road location and user fees.

The court held that the earlier email constituted a request for clarification rather than a counter‑offer and that the signed document and confirming email amounted to unequivocal acceptance within the time limit.

Judgment was granted in accordance with the settlement.