What is the test for triggering a full recovery cost under R. 18(14)?

In Jackson v. Mayerle, Pazaratz J. considered the requirements for an order under R. 18(14). In order to determine whether a party has obtained a result “as favourable as or more favourable than the offer”, the court need not compare the offer and the result with microscopic precision. Rather, as Pazaratz J. stated at para. 47: To trigger full recovery costs a party must do as well or better than all the terms of any offer (or a severable section of an offer)… The court is not required to examine each term of the offer as compared to the terms of the order and weigh with microscopic precision the equivalence of the terms. What is required is a general assessment of the overall comparability of the offer as contrasted with the order… [Citations omitted]