Does an offer to settle pursuant to Rule 37 constitute special circumstances?

In Reid v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, [2000] B.C.J. No. 1810 (S.C.) Shaw J. declined to award costs beyond the lump sum costs set out in Rule 66, although the plaintiff recovered less than the offer to settle delivered under Rule 37. Shaw J. considered that Rule 37 conflicts with the objective of Rule 66 to make litigation less expensive because it would increase the cost of litigation. He recognized that the opening words of subrule 66(29) – “unless the court orders otherwise”- provide the court with discretion on costs. It was his view, however, that the special circumstances which would cause the court to depart from the cost limits in subrule 66(29), should be of such a degree as to make it unjust to apply the mandated costs limits. At ¶12 he stated: Does an offer to settle pursuant to Rule 37 constitute special circumstances? In my opinion, while such an offer may be one factor which, along with others, may constitute special circumstances, the offer alone will rarely, if ever, suffice.