BENNING v HARDING, 2021 ABQB 605
10.33: Court considerations in making costs award
This was on Decision on a Costs Application related to an unsuccessful Application to remove a counsel on the basis of an alleged conflict of interest. Referring to factors in Rule 10.33, the Applicant argued that they should be awarded Costs as they were the successful party, the Application was of importance to the Applicant, and although there was a single issue involved, it was complex and required briefs and many appearances. The Respondent argued that the Applicant should be entitled to no more than $300 in Costs (being the same amount awarded to the Respondent in another Application) as the Application was necessary and important, the complexity was minimal and the Respondent was unable to collect Costs for a successful EPO Application.
Justice Shelley noted that Costs were within the discretion of Court after having regarding to all the factors in the Rules. The fact that the Respondent received $300 in Costs in a previous Application and was unable to collect Costs for an EPO Application were not relevant in this instance. As the Application was akin to a Special Chambers Application, the issue was important and the Applicant was successful, Justice Shelley awarded the Applicant Costs.View CanLII Details