B.C. appeal court awards costs after damages rise by more than $170,000

A motor-vehicle-accident plaintiff whose damages increased by more than $170,000 on appeal is entitled to her appeal costs, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has ruled. The court rejected the respondents’ argument that the increase was too modest to amount to substantial success.

In Clapson v Knight, 2026 BCCA 426, the court issued supplementary reasons on October 30 to settle the costs dispute following its earlier damages judgment. Kathryn Martha Clapson sought her costs of the appeal; the respondents wanted each side to bear its own costs.

The overall result mattered

The court explained that substantial success does not require winning every point raised on appeal. The assessment concerns the overall effect of the judgment, rather than a count of successful grounds. It is an exercise of judgment in which the court may consider a broad range of factors.

Clapson had challenged two aspects of the trial assessment: the amounts awarded for past and future loss of earning capacity, and a five per cent reduction of those damages based on a finding that she had failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate her loss.

She succeeded in part on the first issue. The earlier appeal judgment increased damages for future loss of earning capacity from $1.375 million to $1.475 million. She also succeeded in having the five per cent mitigation deduction set aside, which increased the damages award by a further amount exceeding $70,000.

Costs ruling did not quantify the bill

The respondents emphasized that Clapson had sought a substantially larger increase and had raised numerous grounds that failed. They put the overall increase to the trial order at approximately 10.9 per cent and argued that it was insufficient to establish substantial success.

The court disagreed. It found that Clapson had needed to appeal to correct significant errors in the trial judgment and that the resulting increase of more than $170,000 could not fairly be treated as minimal. In those circumstances, she was substantially successful.

The supplementary ruling therefore entitles Clapson to costs of the appeal. It does not set a dollar amount for those costs or establish that any amount has been paid. The damages increase described in the reasons came from the earlier appeal judgment; it was not a new damages award made in this costs decision.

Source: Clapson v Knight, 2026 BCCA 426.