Neufeld J. considered the appropriate Costs Award following a series of interlocutory Applications in a broader commercial dispute between a group of oil brokers and their former employer. The brokers had applied to strike from the Court record Cross-Examination transcripts they claimed were improperly obtained and contained embarrassing personal information. That Application was dismissed, with the Court finding it lacked legal merit and was effectively an attempt to bypass the proper procedure for seeking a restricted court access Order. While the brokers had earlier obtained temporary injunctive relief preventing dissemination of the transcripts, that relief was ultimately set aside.

The employer then sought $288,902.25 in Costs, representing 50% of its solicitor-client fees incurred in defending the various Applications. The brokers opposed the claim, suggesting a lower lump sum based in part on an earlier, comparable Application where they had been awarded $81,000 in agreed Costs. Neufeld J. emphasized that while costs awards are discretionary, they must be informed by the factors set out in Rule 10.33, including the complexity of the issues, the conduct of the parties, and the importance of the matters in dispute. He rejected both Schedule C (even with a multiplier) and a percentage-based award of solicitor-client fees, noting they would be inappropriate in the circumstances. Schedule C Costs did not adequately reflect the scale and complexity of the litigation, while tying the award to a percentage of fees would invite further disputes over the reasonableness of legal accounts.

A key factor in the Court’s reasoning was the nature of the legal representation. Neufeld J. observed that both parties were represented by “large law firms, with impressive credentials and experience”, and noted that clients such as the brokers and the employer are aware that retaining such counsel “does not come cheap” when making litigation decisions. While this reality informs expectations around legal fees, it does not justify automatic recovery of those fees on a party-and-party basis. Ultimately, Neufeld J. awarded a lump sum of $150,000, which he described as a reasonable compromise reflecting the limited success of the brokers, the over-lawyering concerns raised by the structure of the employer’s legal team, and the exclusion of Cross-Examination Costs the employer had sought to retain for future use.