While financial hardship is a factor for the court to consider, it is insufficient on its own for a departure from the usual rule that costs follow the event: S.D.W. v. C.E.W.W., 2006 BCSC 162, citing Richter v. Richter (2004), 6 C.P.C. (6th) 181, 2004 BCSC 214. The defendant bears the onus of showing why the court should depart from the usual rule that costs follow the event. In light of the defendant’s earning capacity, and the evidence concerning her savings, I am not persuaded that this is a case where an order for costs within the range of the claim here would cause the defendant unusual hardship.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.