14 Sep ICBC Sought Costs Against Plaintiff Who Didn’t Accept Defendant’s Offer

Posted at 08:59h in News by Heather Sweeney

Assadimofrad v. Cowan, 2020 BCSC 1276, is a case in which the Plaintiff was injured when her car was rear-ended.  Both the Defendants and the Plaintiff brought applications seeking costs in this action.

In January, 2020 the Defendants delivered an offer to settle to the Plaintiff in the amount of $265,189.30, plus costs and disbursements.  The Plaintiff did not accept this offer.

In February, 2020, the case went to trial and a jury awarded the Plaintiff $105,200 in damages. Although the Plaintiff was successful in this action, the award of damages was substantially less than what the Defendants had offered her.

The Supreme Court Rules allows a court, when making a decision as to costs, to take into consideration any offers to settle which were exchanged before trial. The purpose of the Rule is to encourage parties to accept reasonable offers.  Parties who make reasonable offers are rewarded with costs, and the party refusing a reasonable offer is penalized.

When making an order under R. 9-1(5) the court may consider the following factors:

(a) whether the offer to settle was one that ought reasonably to have been accepted, either on the date that the offer to settle was delivered or served or on any later date;

(b) the relationship between the terms of settlement offered and the final judgment of the court;

(c) the relative financial circumstances of the parties; and

(d) any other factor the court considers appropriate.

In this case the judge declined to exercise her discretion to vary the ordinary costs order.  She found that the Defendant’s offer was not an offer which the Plaintiff reasonably ought to have accepted.  She also found that the discrepancy between the jury award and the Defendant’s offer was not sufficient for her to deprive the Plaintiff of her costs.

The Plaintiff was awarded her taxable costs and disbursements throughout the action, payable by the Defendants. The Defendant’s application for costs was dismissed.