learn that it has paid more damages than it was required to pay
pursuant to the trial judgment. All it knows with certainty is that
the value of the conditional assignment order has been declining
since that order was made on October 30, 2015.
 In our view, this is an unsatisfactory outcome. The mere
exercise of a right to appeal an order should not frustrate the efficacy of an order that proves, on appeal, to have been properly
made. Nor should counsel be exploiting technicalities to frustrate
the efficacy of judicial orders.
 Subsection 267.8(12) empowers this court to impose conditions on assignment orders. We would do so in this case to prevent the unsuccessful appeal of the conditional assignment order
from defeating the benefit of that order. We would impose an
additional condition on the assignment order requiring Ms. Carroll to disclose to Aviva the amount that she has received by way
of SABs payments in respect of medical and rehabilitation benefits and attendant care benefits since October 30, 2015.
 It is also necessary, in our view, to restore the integrity of
the order, as it was at the time of the trial. If, after Aviva has
received that disclosure, Aviva and Pilot elect to pay the sum of
$2,610,744.32 plus costs and post-judgment interest, minus the
amount of SABs payments in respect of medical and rehabilitation
benefits and attendant care benefits Ms. Carroll has received since
October 30, 2015, Ms. Carroll will assign to Aviva and Pilot
all future payments Ms. Carroll is entitled to receive for SABs in
respect of medical and rehabilitation benefits and attendant care
benefits from her insurer, Pilot.
D. Issue 2: The Costs Appeal
 After succeeding in the action, the appellants sought
$795,616.09 in costs on a partial indemnity basis. The trial judge
awarded the appellants costs but reduced the amount substantially, to $375,000. As noted above, he gave three general reasons for
doing so: (1) the behaviour of the appellants’ counsel relating to
a September 11, 2015 settlement offer made by the respondents;
(2) the lack of benefit to the appellants in pursuing the trial; and
(3) behaviour by the appellants that extended the trial.
 The appellants seek leave to appeal the costs order, arguing that the trial judge erred in arriving at each of the conclusions
that led him to reduce the costs order. They ask for their costs in
the amount of $795,616.09, or for a reassessment of their partial
indemnity costs free of the errors they claim the trial judge made.
 The legal principles that apply in a costs appeal are not
in dispute. Considerable deference should be given to the
trial judge’s discretion in determining the entitlement, scale and