PRACTICE |
Costs |
Caricline Ventures Ltd. v. ZZTY Holdings Ltd.
T-1608-97
2002 FCT 1134, Stinson A.O.
1/11/02
23 pp.
Plaintiff suing successfully for trade-mark infringement by defendants on sports clothing--Litigation process delayed, costly--Parties not cooperating to move ahead litigation-- Plaintiff making settlement offer in October 2000, subsequently making lower offer--Defendants arguing later settlement offer revoking earlier one pursuant to Federal Court Rules, 1998, r. 420(1)--October offer clearly superior to results achieved at trial by defendants--Initial inclination that r. 420(1) doubling penalty should apply from earlier date because defendants should bear costs for failure to accept-- Such failures however not necessarily triggering cost consequences from date of first offer--Determination of date for consequences function of circumstances surrounding offers --No universal approach in cases for multiple settlement offers--Two offers existing in this litigation; later one applicable date for doubling--Decreasing offer by plaintiff and increasing offer by defendant, without reference to earlier offer, is by implication withdrawal of earlier offer: Diefenbacher v. Young (1995), 123 D.L.R. (4th) 641 (Ont. C.A.)--Parties may stipulate in second offer that earlier one remains outstanding--R. 420 not expressly requiring written revocation of offer--Second offer incorporating some elements of initial offer, effectively revoking it--Doubling applying from date of second offer--Ten of 19 units allowed for claim for doubling--Federal Court Rules, 1998, SOR/98-106, r. 420.