Estate settlement offer rejected by unsuccessful party, no double costs award: BC Court of Appeal

Losing party in estate litigation not liable for costs from unaccepted settlement offers

Estate settlement offer rejected by unsuccessful party, no double costs award: BC Court of Appeal
Offer to settle in estate litigation not considered

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has refused to award costs to a successful appellant in an estate litigation for settlement offers given to but unaccepted by the unsuccessful party.

In Coad v. Lariviere, 2022 BCCA 350, Sasha Coad was the successful appellant in an estate litigation, where the appellate court reversed a decision by the trial court. The trial court ruled that Barbara Lariviere died intestate and that she and Coad were not in a marriage-like relationship. As such, Lariviere’s heir on intestacy was her mother, Olga Phillips.

Phillips disputed Coad’s status as a common law spouse before the trial court. She died during litigation, and the action was continued by the estate administrator, Dianne Phillips.

The appellate court ordered costs payable from Lariviere’s estate for both Coad and the estate administrator. Coad sought costs from the Phillips estate and declarations to have the Phillips estate excluded from costs from the Lariviere estate.

Coad argued that the unsuccessful party is liable for trial costs, double costs since his initial offer to settle should have been accepted, special costs, and that the administrator should not receive any administrative fees, legal costs, or non-essential expenses.

The appellate court agreed in part.

Rejection of settlement offer not considered by appellate court

While unsuccessful parties on appeal are generally liable for costs, probate actions are not always that straightforward, said the court, but it found that ut was clear that Coad was entitled to his trial costs from the Lariviere estate. 

As for the settlement issue, while the appellate court was aware that Coad felt he was treated poorly, there was no evidence that anyone acted in a manner that suggested fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence. The appellate court did not consider Coad’s offers, since they were marked without prejudice and did not contain a clause that they would be brought to the court’s attention.

As for the estate administrator, she was obliged to defend the appeal and was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis from the Lariviere estate.

Recent articles & video

Lawyer’s reprimand letter from NL legal regulator must be reconsidered: provincial court of appeal

Lawyer suing feds over Ukraine refugee program wants Ottawa to come to table before it’s too late

NS Supreme Court rejects father’s allegation of ‘parental alienation’

Dickinson Wright, Lenczner Slaght, Fasken, other firms act in $333-million commercial case

Ontario Superior Court rejects statement of claim amendment based on disciplinary proceeding

Clifford Chance penetrates global energy hub with Houston office

Most Read Articles

Steve McKersie, CEO of Gowling WLG, on his firm’s people-first strategic plan

From in-house counsel to angel investor, 1Password’s CLO Erin Zipes reflects on building a practice

Top Personal Injury Boutiques for 2023 unveiled by Canadian Lawyer

Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies insurance coverage rule for passengers of stolen vehicles