No reprehensible litigation conduct in taking the case to trial: court
The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that the plaintiff in a personal injury case is entitled to double costs but denied special or uplift costs, finding no misconduct by the defendants in taking the case to trial.
The initial trial judgment determined the damages payable to the plaintiff, with liability already admitted by the defendants. The plaintiff sought damages between $1,160,000 and $1,362,000, while the defendants estimated an appropriate award between $575,000 and $725,000. The court ultimately awarded $1,224,699.74, subject to adjustments for tax gross-up and statutory deductions.
Following the judgment, a preliminary ruling granted the plaintiff costs on Scale B of Appendix B of the Supreme Court Civil Rules (SCCR), with the option for further submissions if necessary. The plaintiff then applied for special, uplift, or double costs based on her pre-trial settlement offers.
The plaintiff argued that the defendants engaged in abusive litigation tactics by forcing the case to trial despite having no credible defence. She contended that the defendant's refusal to settle for an amount below their final trial submissions demonstrated abuse of process. Additionally, she highlighted that the defendants failed to present expert evidence on a key issue and did not challenge her credibility during closing arguments.
The defendants opposed the request for special or uplift costs but consented to double costs under SCCR 9-1(5)(b). They justified their trial approach based on evidence, including pre-accident health concerns, employment history, and other factors affecting damages. They maintained that their actions were within the normal scope of litigation and did not constitute misconduct warranting special costs.
The Supreme Court agreed with the defendants, finding no evidence of reprehensible conduct justifying special costs. It noted that the litigation followed a typical course for motor vehicle accident claims, with both parties presenting their positions in good faith. The court emphasized that SCCR 9-1 provides a structured mechanism for cost consequences, stating that double costs were the appropriate remedy for the defendants' failure to accept reasonable settlement offers.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for special or uplift costs but granted the agreed-upon order for double costs.
