The Appellant, Beaulieu, was employed by the Respondent, University of Alberta (the “University”), as a professor under the terms of a collective agreement. The Respondent, Lynch (“Lynch”), was the Dean of Faculty and the Respondent, Marquez (“Marquez”), was the Chair of the Appellant’s department. The Appellant’s claim alleged harassment, denial of access to research funding records, breach of a settlement agreement, breach of confidentiality, defamation, intentional infliction of mental suffering and a failure to stop disciplinary proceedings to accommodate his medical condition. The Respondents applied to strike the Statement of Claim on the basis that the Court lacked jurisdiction because the dispute resolution procedures in the collective agreement provided an exclusive forum for the resolution of disputes. The Appellant applied for an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the Respondents from proceeding with collective agreement proceedings against him until his physician gave medical clearance. The Chambers Judge struck the Statement of Claim pursuant to Rule 3.68, declined to grant an injunction, and awarded double Column 4 Costs against the Appellant: 2013 ABQB 237.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal and, because the Statement of Claim was struck, determined it was unnecessary to consider the Appellant’s injunction Application as there was no longer a jurisdictional basis for the relief sought in the Statement of Claim. The Court of Appeal referenced Rule 10.33(2)(g) which provides that, in making a Costs award, a court may consider whether a party has engaged in misconduct. Costs awards are not restricted to cases that have been adjudicated on the merits. The Appellant had engaged in activity to embarrass and harass Lynch and Marquez. No determination on the merits of the allegations in the Statement of Claim was necessary to make the finding of misconduct, which finding alone supported the Costs award.