Case Overview
In Lawetz v. Wigboldus, 2024 BCSC 2172, Tyrone Lawetz sued John Wigboldus for defamation, alleging that Wigboldus made harmful comments during a job reference call. The court dismissed the defamation claim, finding the comments were protected by qualified privilege.

Legal Arguments and Issues

• Plaintiff’s Claims: Lawetz argued the comments caused a lost job opportunity and were made with malice.
• Defendant’s Defense: Wigboldus asserted the statements were honest and covered by qualified privilege. He also sought costs, arguing that the claim was meritless and pursued improperly.
• Court’s Findings: The court held that Wigboldus acted within the scope of qualified privilege, and Lawetz failed to prove malice or causation for the job loss.

Costs Awarded

• Special Costs: Denied. The court found no reprehensible conduct by Lawetz that warranted such costs.
• Increased Costs: Denied. The litigation was not unusually complex or unjust under the standard costs rules.
• Double Costs: Awarded to Wigboldus starting June 14, 2024, when the plaintiff rejected a second reasonable offer to settle. The court determined this rejection was unreasonable given the clear weaknesses in Lawetz’s case.

Conclusion
Wigboldus was awarded double costs from June 14, 2024, assessed at Scale B, including any cost hearings. This reflected the court's emphasis on deterring unmeritorious claims and encouraging settlement. The exact monetary award would be determined through further assessment.