Does the Court of Appeal have any obligation to consider an offer to settle?

In my opinion, his not doing so raises a neat and, especially in the context of matrimonial litigation, an important point: In considering whether there has been substantial success within the principle of Gold v. Gold, supra, for the purpose of determining the appropriate order under Rule 57(9), ought the court to compare the result with an offer to settle which has been made?

I say it is important in the context of matrimonial litigation because such litigation gives rise often, and did in this case, to discrete questions arising under two statutes: custody, access and support under the Divorce Act, and division of matrimonial property under the Family Relations Act. Rule 37 is really not apt to cases with such issues, but nevertheless offers to settle should not be without impact on costs in matrimonial litigation. Gold v. Gold, of course, was concerned only with the division of property.