Following a Decision confirming an Emergency Protection Order (“EPO”), the claimant applied for Costs. While the Claimant was substantially successful in the EPO proceeding, her Application was refused.

The Claimant sough Costs under Rule 10.29 and subsection 4(2)(d) of the Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27 (“PAFVA”). Under the Rule 10.29, a successful party is entitled to Costs payable forthwith. Subsection 4(2)(d) of PAFVA provides that a protection Order granted by a Justice may include reimbursement for a claimant’s losses, including “legal expenses and costs of an application under this Act”.

Justice Eamon rejected the claimant’s argument that subsection 4(2)(d) applied to the Application before him, as that provision dealt with protection Orders which are distinct from EPOs. Since the sections of the PAFVA governing EPOs do not contain a provision similar to subsection 4(2)(d), then, as a matter of public policy, the Legislature must not have intended to expose claimants of EPOs to costs. Instead, the Court may consider Costs arising from the review or Appeal of an EPO proceeding under Rule 10.33. However, Eamon J. noted that the Court has previously declined to “award costs against respondents in EPO proceedings merely because they were unsuccessful in contesting the EPO”. To attract Costs, the claimant must have sought an EPO for collateral purposes or abused the Court’s process, none of which were applicable in the cast at bar.