QUEEN’S BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2010 SKQB 458 Date: 2010 12 15 Docket: F.L.D. No. 182 of 2009 Judicial Centre: Regina, Family Law Division BETWEEN: JAMES ALAN SCHEIBEL and ROBERT JAMES CROFT Counsel: James J. Vogel and Joanne C. Moser for the petitioner Gregory G. Walen, Q.C. for the respondent DECEMBER 15, 2010 SUPPLEMENTARY REASONS KEENE J. to November 25, 2010 JUDGMENT (2010 SKQB 439 (CanLII)) [1] am satisfied that the petitioner served the respondent with formal offer of settlement on September 14, 2010. The offer was not accepted (and indeed never was accepted) and the case proceeded to trial. The trial was concluded and the matter stood reserved pending my decision. About week after the conclusion of the trial, but before rendered my decision the petitioner revoked his offer. [2] have compared the offer of settlement to my decision. Suffice to say that my decision ended up being considerably more favourable to the petitioner than what the petitioner offered to settle for. This was the case for not only the family property issues (which the petitioner calculates he received about $229,888.00 more in my judgment than what he proposed in his offer) but also in terms of spousal support. The petitioner had offered to waive any spousal support but after trial ordered retroactive spousal support in the amount of $18,000.00. [3] The purpose of making formal offers to settle pursuant to the Queen’s Bench Rules of Court is obvious. Nor is this new or novel proceeding under the Queen’s Bench Rules of Court. The parties are encouraged to try and settle their disputes on reasonable basis and thereby avoid the heavy financial and emotional burden of trial. The sanction so to speak of not accepting a reasonable offer properly tendered and proceeding to trial is found in Rule 184B of the Queen’s Bench Rules of Court. This Rule calls for double costs from the date of service of the offer. [4] The wrinkle here is that the petitioner’s offer was revoked. However it was revoked week after the conclusion of the trial. Obviously if it had been accepted when tendered there would not have been trial with the attendant costs of running the trial. The fact the offer was revoked in my view does not alter the concept set out above and the resulting sanction. [5] The respondent argues that both parties received mixed results. The respondent further argues that the issues that were litigated were substantial and merited trial. agree that the positions put forth by both parties at trial did not result in either party getting exactly what they argued they should. However, nonetheless the fact remains that an offer to settle was tendered which was not accepted and the trial proceeded. Again all of this would have been avoided had the offer been accepted. That is the intent in my opinion of Rule 184B and shall implement the Rule. [6] In addition I wish to use my discretion offered to myself under Rule 545 to award costs as I see fit. [7] The combination of Rule 184B and Rule 545 lead myself to the following conclusion. I order that the petitioner shall have party to party costs under Column 3 up to September 14, 2010. From September 14, 2010 the petitioner shall be awarded double party to party costs under Column 3. In addition the petitioner shall receive his costs for this application fixed at $500.00. Since these matters have now been concluded all costs of course are payable forthwith. J. T. J. Keene
Supplementary reasons to 2010 SKQB 439. The petitioner served the respondent with a formal offer of settlement on September 14, 2010. The offer was not accepted and the matter proceeded to trial. A week after the trial was concluded and while the decision was reserved, the offer was revoked. The petitioner applies for costs against the respondent pursuant to Queen's Bench Rule 184B. HELD: Queen's Bench Rule 184B calls for double costs from the date of service of the offer. The fact the offer was revoked does not alter the concept in Rule 184B and the resulting sanction. The petitioner was awarded party to party costs under Column 3 up to September 14, 2010 and double party of party costs under Column 3 thereafter, together with the costs for this application. All costs were payable forthwith.