Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dismissal of Nova-BioRubber Green Technologies Inc.’s damages claim after a no-evidence motion left the plaintiff with no compensable recovery.

• Central consideration of Rule 9-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules on whether a pre-trial offer to settle justified a double-costs award against the plaintiff.

• Assessment of the reasonableness of the defendant Investment Agriculture Foundation British Columbia’s all-inclusive $25,000 offer compared to the plaintiff’s asserted claim of at least $900,000.

• Examination of the plaintiff’s expectations about damages as unrealistic and lacking legal basis, which weighed heavily in favour of penal costs consequences.

• Policy emphasis on encouraging early settlement and sanctioning parties who unreasonably refuse reasonable offers, applied here to a self-represented corporate plaintiff.

• Final order awarding the defendant double costs from November 3, 2023, to the date of the costs reasons, with quantum to be determined through the usual costs process.

Facts and background

Nova-BioRubber Green Technologies Inc. (the plaintiff) applied for scientific grants under the Canadian-BC Agri-Innovation Program. Investment Agriculture Foundation British Columbia (the defendant, the Foundation) administered the program and concluded that the plaintiff’s proposals did not meet the program’s eligibility requirements. As a result, the plaintiff’s applications for funding were rejected.

The plaintiff, through its principal, Dr. Anvar Buranov, commenced an action claiming damages against the Foundation for losses it said flowed from the rejection of its grant applications. Dr. Buranov both testified for the plaintiff and represented the company at trial, acting without legal counsel. The plaintiff advanced a claim said to be worth “at least” $900,000 in losses and damages.

The trial took place in New Westminster, British Columbia, over October 27–28, 2025. The plaintiff presented its case first. After delivering an opening statement on behalf of the plaintiff, Dr. Buranov gave his evidence in chief and was cross-examined by counsel for the Foundation.

Trial outcome and no-evidence motion

At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the Foundation brought a no-evidence motion under Rule 12-1 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, arguing that there was no evidence capable of supporting the plaintiff’s claims. The court accepted this submission and granted the no-evidence motion. As a result, the plaintiff’s action was dismissed at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case, without the need for the Foundation to call evidence.

This dismissal meant that Nova-BioRubber recovered no damages at all. The Foundation, having successfully defended the action, then sought an order regarding costs based on a prior offer to settle under Rule 9-1.

The offer to settle and the costs framework

The costs decision turned on Rule 9-1(4)–(6) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules, which allows the court to take account of formal offers to settle when fixing costs and, in particular, to award double costs for steps taken after a reasonable offer is refused.
On November 1, 2023, well before trial and before the parties incurred expenses for discoveries or trial attendance, the Foundation made an offer to settle the entire action.

The offer was for an all-inclusive payment of $25,000, including any entitlement to costs. The offer set out the Foundation’s rationale for the proposed amount and was presented as a genuine compromise.

On November 3, 2023, the plaintiff rejected the offer and reaffirmed its position that its losses and damages were “at least” $900,000. The plaintiff chose instead to continue to trial.

Legal test for double costs under Rule 9-1

The court reviewed Rule 9-1(5)(b), which permits an order awarding double costs of all or some steps taken after the delivery of an offer to settle. The court also considered the guiding factors in Rule 9-1(6), including:

(a) whether the offer ought reasonably to have been accepted when made or at a later time;
(b) the relationship between the terms of the offer and the final judgment;
(c) the relative financial circumstances of the parties; and

(d) any other factor the court considers appropriate.
The court emphasized the policy behind these provisions: to encourage early and reasonable settlement of disputes by rewarding parties who make sensible offers and penalizing parties who unreasonably refuse them. Appellate authorities such as Hartshorne v. Hartshorne and Wafler v. Trinh reinforce that a party who rejects a reasonable offer should face cost consequences, often in the form of double costs for some or all of the post-offer steps.

Application of the Rule to the parties’ conduct

The court invited written submissions on costs. The Foundation argued that its November 1, 2023 offer was a serious and meaningful compromise. It stressed the early timing of the offer, its all-inclusive nature (including a waiver of costs), its clear rationale, and the fact that it was made at a stage when neither party had yet incurred the significant expense of trial. From the Foundation’s perspective, the plaintiff had a clear opportunity to exit a weak case with a concrete financial payment.

The plaintiff’s written submissions did not engage with the costs issue or Rule 9-1 directly. Instead, they repeated arguments previously made and rejected at trial regarding the merits of the claim. The court found that the plaintiff’s expectations regarding the alleged $900,000 loss were unrealistic and without legal foundation, particularly in light of the complete dismissal of the claim on a no-evidence motion.

Considering the Rule 9-1(6) factors, the court concluded that the Foundation’s $25,000 offer bore a sensible relationship to the very weak evidentiary footing of the plaintiff’s case. The offer was plainly more favourable than the outcome ultimately achieved by the plaintiff, which was the dismissal of the action with no damages. In these circumstances, the offer was one that “ought reasonably to have been accepted,” and the plaintiff’s refusal warranted a sanction in costs.

Ruling on costs and overall outcome

The court determined that this was an appropriate case to invoke Rule 9-1(5)(b) and ordered double costs in favour of the defendant. Specifically, the court held that the Foundation shall receive double costs of the action from November 3, 2023 (the date the plaintiff rejected the offer) to the date of the costs reasons. The precise dollar amount of those double costs was not fixed in the reasons and will be determined in the usual course, either by agreement or assessment.

Overall, the defendant Investment Agriculture Foundation British Columbia emerged as the successful party. It defeated the plaintiff’s damages claim entirely through a no-evidence motion at trial and then obtained a favourable costs order awarding it double costs for the post-offer period. No damages were awarded to Nova-BioRubber Green Technologies Inc., and no specific monetary figure for costs was set out in the decision.