31. There would appear to be some inconsistency or uncertainty as to exactly what costs are to be considered in awarding suit costs. Is it “primarily” for disbursements per Justice Goodfellow (and Justice Haliburton in Sampson v. Sampson, 1997 CarswellNS 350, para 29)? One might find the genesis of that proposition in the words “incidental to the matrimonial cause” in CPR 57.29, words, which, as noted, are not found in CPR 70.24 (2). If , as Justice Goodfellow postulates a family law practitioner might be expected to forego either an adequate retainer or timely payment, (see O’Brien v. O’Brien para. 21), that that fact along with the use of the word “incidental” warrants the limited focus of suit costs. (I’m not sure that there are too many law practices, certainly small rural practices, that can reasonably be expected to carry an extensive receivable on the books for too long with no relief.)
Get a full legal research memo!
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexsei.com.