Manitoba land-claim winner’s costs reduced by $3,000 over expert challenge

A man who established a binding agreement to buy part of a Manitoba estate’s land has won legal costs, but with a $3,000 reduction for unnecessarily prolonging the trial over a disputed bill of sale.

Justice Toews of the Court of King’s Bench of Manitoba made the costs ruling in Tritthart v. Culligan et al., 2026 MBKB 129, delivered September 17, 2026. Patrick Culligan was awarded $16,575 in the probate proceeding and $3,325 in a separate action concerning restoration of electricity service. The court also ordered $500 for printing and filing and $300 for the written costs submissions.

The decision follows the court’s 2024 ruling on the land agreement. It does not make a new determination that a land transfer has been completed.

Success on the agreement did not resolve costs

The executor, Douglas William Tritthart, had asked the court to resolve questions about land registered in the name of the deceased, Ronald Gordon Tritthart. The trial dealt with that application alongside Culligan’s separate action.

In the earlier decision, 2024 MBKB 165, Toews found a binding agreement concerning a 10-acre portion of an 80-acre parcel. The executor was required to pursue subdivision approval at the estate’s expense. Completion of the sale was conditional on obtaining and registering the approved subdivision, with damages available in the circumstances specified in the earlier order if the process failed. The estate was not entitled to rent for Culligan’s use of the disputed land.

That success rested on evidence other than the bill of sale on which Culligan had relied. The judge was not satisfied that the document was genuine, pointing in the earlier reasons to its absence from relevant discussions and records. The costs decision makes no finding about who created the disputed document.

Culligan argued that the other evidence establishing the agreement made the handwriting-evidence dispute an unnecessary diversion for which the executor should bear the expense. He sought tariff costs totalling $26,148 for the application and injunction action, submitting that any reduction should be modest.

The executor argued instead that each side should bear its own costs because Culligan’s conduct had lengthened and complicated the trial. In particular, he pointed to the time spent disputing the qualifications and opinion of the handwriting expert.

A targeted reduction, not a denial of costs

Toews applied the court’s costs discretion under Rule 57.01, which permits consideration of the result, the importance and complexity of the issues, and conduct that unnecessarily lengthens or complicates a proceeding.

The judge found that Culligan’s overall success justified costs. However, challenging the expert’s expertise and opinion without rebuttal expert evidence or other evidence on that issue had unnecessarily extended the trial. Toews reduced preparation and trial fees by $3,000, leaving $16,575 for the probate proceeding. The finding concerned how that particular challenge was pursued, rather than a general prohibition on contesting expert evidence.

The executor also opposed any costs for the electricity-restoration action, noting that Culligan eventually installed solar equipment. Toews rejected that argument: in the circumstances, commencing the action had not been frivolous or unnecessary merely because another power source was later obtained.

The court therefore allowed the separate $3,325 award for that action, alongside the printing, filing and written-submission amounts.