The Court considered the appropriate Costs to be awarded to the Defendant after the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim was struck.

The Defendant had made a Formal Offer that was not accepted and was therefore entitled to double Costs for steps taken after the Formal Offer was made pursuant to Rule 4.29(3). The Court therefore awarded double Costs for the Questioning on an Affidavit that had taken place.

The Court declined to award Costs for the Defendant’s participation in an Appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. The Appeal related to whether another Defendant was a proper party to the dispute. This Appeal was dismissed and the Court determined that the Defendant could not fairly be said to be the “successful party” within the meaning of Rule 14.88.

One of the issues before the Court was whether an Interlocutory Application for which Costs had already been determined counted as a “step taken in the action” under Rule 4.29(2), qualifying it for double Costs treatment under Rule 4.29(3). The Defendant had been successful in an Interlocutory Application that occurred after the Formal Offer was rejected. The Court noted that Rule 10.29 states that a successful party to an Application is entitled to Costs “notwithstanding the final determination of the application, proceeding or action.” The Court determined that Rule 10.29 means that Interlocutory Application Costs are awarded regardless of whether a Formal Offer was made.

Interlocutory Applications with Costs that have already been addressed do not count as a “step taken in the action”. Accordingly, the Defendant was not entitled to double Costs for the Costs awarded for the Interlocutory Application.