In Jukic v. Luta, 2009 BCSC 365, the court expressed a similar view somewhat differently. It concluded that, in light of the multiple issues involved in a family proceeding, it would be "virtually impossible" to match an offer to settle with the orders made and that such a high standard was not required in order to be entitled to double costs.
In terms of establishing the alleged counsel agreement on costs, "[t]he burden of proving consensus between the parties falls to the party seeking to prove the existence of the agreement, and the standard to be met is proof on a balance of probabilities”: Reid v. Reid, 2011 BCSC 231 at para. 27.
"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.