Does an offer to settle in a case constitute a special circumstance and justified departure from Rule 66(29)?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Coronado et al. v. Farkas et al., 2006 BCSC 881 (CanLII):

In Duong v. Howarth, (supra) Macaulay J. concluded that the offer to settle in that case constituted a special circumstance and justified departure from the fixed costs consequences of Rule 66(29).

Other Questions


Does the service of a formal offer to settle and the failure of the defence to consent to having the matter proceed by way of Rule 66 constitute "special circumstances" sufficient to require special costs? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does an offer to settle pursuant to Rule 37 constitute special circumstances? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the change in circumstances of the mother's circumstances constitute a distinct departure from what the parties could reasonably have anticipated in August 1999? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can an offer that does not comply with Rule 37 B constitute an offer to settle? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a change of circumstance in circumstances arising from an application to cancel or reduce arrears constitute a separate code of conduct? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances will the BCCA accept an offer to settle? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances will the court refuse to accept an offer to settle with the orders made in a family proceeding? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the difference between an initial and comprehensive settlement offer made by the respondent and a revised offer to settle? (British Columbia, Canada)
What circumstances may justify a special costs award for a party who pursues a meritless claim? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a defendant have to pay special costs if a plaintiff has made an offer to settle their claim? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.