K.E.K. v. G.M.K., 2015 SKQB 67

Judge:McIntyre, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
Case Date:February 27, 2015
Jurisdiction:Saskatchewan
Citations:2015 SKQB 67;(2015), 456 Sask.R. 115 (FD)
 
FREE EXCERPT

K.E.K. v. G.M.K. (2015), 456 Sask.R. 115 (FD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.046

K.E.K. (petitioner) v. G.M.K. (respondent)

(2012 DIV No. 684; 2015 SKQB 67)

Indexed As: K.E.K. v. G.M.K.

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Family Law Division

Judicial Centre of Regina

McIntyre, J.

February 27, 2015.

Summary:

The issues between the parties included parenting of their 16 year old child, the division of property, child support and spousal support.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, in a decision reported at (2014), 456 Sask.R. 102, determined the issues. The mother was awarded costs of the trial, fixed at $3,500. The mother sought double costs, taxed under column 4, based on a formal offer to settle. The father sought to amend the judgment.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, awarded the mother double costs, taxed under column 3. The father's application was dismissed.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Courts - Topic 2194

Jurisdiction - Loss or termination of jurisdiction upon fulfilling function (functus officio) - Costs - The issues between the parties included parenting, child support and spousal support and possession of the family home, the value of which was in dispute - On February 28, 2014, the mother served a formal offer to settle - The father responded with an appraisal report valuing the family home - The mother revised her offer to match the appraisal and served it on March 6, 2014 - The trial commenced on March 10, 2014 - The mother was awarded costs, fixed at $3,500 - The mother sought double costs, taxed under column 4, based on her second offer to settle - The father asserted that, in awarding costs, the court had exercised its discretion under rule 11-1 and the cost consequences of rule 4-31 did not apply - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, awarded the mother double costs, taxed under column 3 - No judgment roll had been taken out - The court was not functus officio and retained jurisdiction to change the costs assessment - Any different result would defeat the objectives of settlement and compromise that rule 4-31 promoted - See paragraphs 7 to 11.

Practice - Topic 5465

Judgments and orders - Finality of judgments and orders - Where judge functus officio - [See Courts - Topic 2194 ].

Practice - Topic 6105

Judgments and orders - Amendment, rescission and variation of judgments and orders - Before judgment or order perfected or entered - The issues between the parties included parenting, child support and spousal support and possession of the family home - There was mixed success after trial - Before the judgment roll was entered, the father applied under rule 10-10(b) to amend the judgment - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, dismissed the application - The amendments sought did not fall into the categories contemplated by the rule - The amendments sought involved issues raised at trial where a judgment followed - The father's position amounted to seeking to have the court reconsider the merits of the issues raised - See paragraphs 16 to 19.

Practice - Topic 7004

Costs - Party and party costs - General principles and definitions - Scale of costs - Fixing of - The issues between the parties included parenting, child support and spousal support and possession of the family home, the value of which was in dispute - On February 28, 2014, the mother served a formal offer to settle - The father responded with an appraisal report valuing the family home - The mother revised her offer to match the appraisal and served it on March 6, 2014 - The trial commenced on March 10, 2014 - The mother was awarded costs, fixed at $3,500 - The mother sought double costs, taxed under column 4, based on her second offer to settle - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, awarded the mother double costs, taxed under column 3 - While the equalization payment was more than $100,000, the threshold for column 4, it was not substantially more - None of the issues were complex - Using column 4 was not appropriate - See paragraphs 20 to 23.

Practice - Topic 7242.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Offers to settle - Grounds for denying double costs - [See Practice - Topic 7243 ].

Practice - Topic 7243

Costs - Party and party costs - Offers to settle - Effect of failure to accept - The issues between the parties included parenting, child support and spousal support and possession of the family home, the value of which was in dispute - On February 28, 2014, the mother served a formal offer to settle - The father responded with an appraisal report valuing the family home - The mother revised her offer to match the appraisal and served it on March 6, 2014 - The trial commenced on March 10, 2014 - The mother was awarded costs, fixed at $3,500 - The mother sought double costs, taxed under column 4, based on her second offer to settle - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, awarded the mother double costs, taxed under column 3 - While the second formal offer was made less than 10 days prior to the trial, contrary to rule 4-31(3)(c), the first formal offer was revised to give the father what he wanted - It made no sense to suggest that the mother would lose the possible cost consequences by doing that - There were no "special circumstances" as contemplated by rule 4-31(3)(e) such that rule 4-31 would not apply - See paragraphs 12 to 15.

Practice - Topic 7245.4

Costs - Party and party costs - Offers to settle - Time of offer - [See Practice - Topic 7243 ].

Cases Noticed:

Peltier v. Peltier (2008), 314 Sask.R. 211; 435 W.A.C. 211; 2008 SKCA 151, appld. [para. 8].

Peltier v. Taylor - see Peltier v. Peltier.

581257 Alberta Ltd. v. Aujla (2011), 518 A.R. 323; 2011 ABQB 539, revd. (2013), 542 A.R. 123; 566 W.A.C. 123; 2013 ABCA 16, refd to. [para. 10].

Davidson v. Patten et al. (2008), 425 A.R. 186; 418 W.A.C. 186; 2008 ABCA 65, refd to. [para. 14].

O'Krane v. Misfeldt (2002), 229 Sask.R. 174; 2002 SKQB 519, refd to. [para. 18].

D.H. v. J.E.H. (2002), 215 Sask.R. 183; 2002 SKQB 39 (Fam. Div.), refd to. [para. 21].

Statutes Noticed:

Queen's Bench Rules (Sask.) - see Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules.

Rules of Court (Sask.), Queen's Bench Rules, rule 4-31, rule 10-10(b) [para. 6].

Counsel:

Lindsay Wacholtz, for the petitioner;

Timothy Stodalka, for the respondent.

These applications were heard by McIntyre, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Family Law Division, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on February 27, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP