This is a Decision relating to Costs of Appeals 2203-0110AC and 2203-0154AC (the “Appeals”), which were resolved by the Reasons for Decision reported as Anglin v Resler, 2024 ABCA 113.

The Appellant achieved substantial success in the Appeals. The Appellant successfully achieved his main procedural goal of being able to cross-examine the Respondent before the Summary Judgment Application, and certain parts of the Order that had struck out his Statement of Claim were overturned. The Court acknowledged that the Appellant is entitled to Costs assessed on Column 5, along with reasonable disbursements and GST. Additionally, the Respondents were entitled to the assessed Costs, reasonable disbursements, and GST for the Appellant's unsuccessful Stay Application.

Another issue raised by the Appellant was whether the assessed Costs should be based on a single Appeal or two separate Appeals. Appeal 2203-0110AC was related to an unreported procedural decision made by the Case Management Judge on May 13, 2022, which set the stage for the Respondent's Application to strike out the Appellant's claim. Appeal 2203-0154AC was regarding the subsequent Order made by another Chambers Judge on July 11, 2022, which did strike out the Appellant’s claim.

The Court examined Rule 14.71 and determined that an Appeal of a procedural Order in this case was unnecessary. Consequently, the Court decided that the Costs for filing the Appeals and other preparations should be assessed as one set due to the consolidation of the Appeals. This decision was based on the procedural history and the actions taken by the Appellant in managing the Appeals. The Court also acknowledged that even though Appeal 2203-0110A from the interlocutory Order turned out to be unnecessary, it was not improper for the Appellant to file that Appeal as a precautionary measure.