Background
These supplementary reasons addressed costs after the Court of Appeal dismissed both Angela Jones’s appeal and Kevin Jones’s cross appeal in protracted family-law litigation. Ms. Jones had challenged the suitability of summary trial, the rulings on property division and spousal support, the trial costs award, and the fairness of the proceeding.
Mr. Jones’s cross appeal concerned the exclusion of an expert report relevant to property division. At the hearing, however, he advised that if Ms. Jones’s appeal were dismissed, he did not seek a ruling on the cross appeal. After dismissing both proceedings, the Court received written submissions on whether each party should recover costs for the matter they successfully defended.
The Court’s Holding
The Court awarded Mr. Jones his costs of defending the appeal and Ms. Jones her costs of defending the cross appeal. It applied the general rule that costs follow the event and treated the appeal and cross appeal separately because, although both implicated property division, they raised distinct legal issues requiring separate analysis and remained live until the appeal was decided.
The Court acknowledged that Ms. Jones’s appeal raised substantially more issues and dominated the written and oral arguments. That disparity did not justify denying her costs of the cross appeal; instead, it would be reflected when the two awards were assessed. Because Mr. Jones’s appeal costs would inevitably be greater, the assessed awards were to be offset so that he could recover the net amount from Ms. Jones.
Key Takeaways
- When both an appeal and a cross appeal are dismissed, each successful responding party may receive costs for the proceeding that party defended.
- Related appeal and cross-appeal issues may be treated separately for costs when they involve distinct legal questions and analyses.
- A major disparity in the breadth of the proceedings can be addressed through assessment and offset rather than by denying costs on the narrower cross appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that technical dismissal of a cross appeal can support a costs award even when the Court does not decide its merits because the cross appellant made a ruling unnecessary after the main appeal failed. The practical focus remains on success and whether the proceedings involved separable issues.
For litigants, the ruling also shows how assessment and offset can produce a proportionate result: both parties receive recognition for their success, while the party who incurred greater recoverable costs receives only the net difference.