Does a plaintiff have to accept an offer to settle at the time it was made?

In contrast, the court in Riley v. Riley, 2010 BCSC 822, found that the plaintiff should have accepted the offer to settle at the time it was made. The defendant presented the plaintiff with an offer to settle on the terms that the parties would file a consent dismissal order and each party would bear their own costs: at para. 4. The plaintiff argued that this offer was “not a true offer to settle as it was simply “an invitation to the plaintiff to abandon the litigation”: at para. 14. On awarding double costs, Mr. Justice Greyell concluded that there was “no logical distinction between a nominal offer and an offer such as that made by the defendant in this case”: at para. 21. He considered the principle to be the same: if one party is provided with an offer to settle and is not successful at trial in advancing its position relative to the offer, it may be held accountable for costs of pursuing the matter to trial.