All parties accept that costs orders are discretionary and that the trial judge is in a privileged position to assess the criteria that ought to be considered in making a costs order, in particular the complexity of the issues at trial, the time taken to address those issues, and the extent to which the trial was prolonged or expedited by counsel or the parties. An order for costs should only be set aside if the trial judge erred in principle in the assessment of costs or if the costs award is plainly wrong: Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery Ltd., 2004 SCC 9 at para. 27, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 303. (i) The consequences of the settlement offer
"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.