Is Rule 66(29.1) limited to lump sum costs?

The court held that the question of whether the trial judge’s discretion with respect to costs was fettered by Rule 66(29) required an examination of the rule in its entire context and reading of it in its ordinary grammatical sense, harmoniously with the scheme and object to the Rule and the Rules in general. The court noted the object of Rule 66 and further noted that the provision of lump sum costs served the object of the speedier and less expensive resolution of disputes and was not designed to deprive a successful litigant of costs but rather to save the parties the cost of an assessment, referring in that regard to the decision of Macaulay J. in Duong v. Howarth, 2005 BCSC 128, 2005 CarswellBC 223 BCSC. The court noted that the enactment of Rule 66(29.1) allowed the court to consider a formal settlement offer as a “special circumstance” in determining whether the costs limitation in Rule 66(29) should be applied.