This was a Costs decision arising from Bow Valley Engage Society v Alberta (Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, Designated Director), 2025 ABKB 158. The Court addressed Costs following the dismissal of two related Judicial Review Applications — one by Bow Valley Engage Society (“BVES”) and the other by the Stoney Nakoda First Nations (“Stoney Nakoda”). Although the Applications were separate, the Court noted they raised similar issues and were heard concurrently, creating procedural efficiencies that were considered when assessing Costs.

Stoney Nakoda acknowledged that Three Sisters Mountain Village Properties Ltd. (“TSMVP”), and Thunderstone Quarries Canmore Ltd. (“Thunderstone”) were all successful parties in the Judicial Review Application and that they were presumptively entitled to Costs.

The Court began by noting that when considering an award of Costs, courts are required to take into consideration the factors set out in Rule 10.33(1), including the result of the Action or degree of success of each party, the amount claimed and the amount recovered, the importance of the issues, the complexity of the Action, and  any other matter related to the question of reasonable and proper Costs that the Court considers appropriate.

The Court rejected BVES and the Stoney Nakoda’s argument that their Judicial Reviews warranted reduced Costs due to their alleged public interest nature, given the parties were directly affected by the Judicial Review Application.

The Court awarded Costs to both Thunderstone and TSMVP, applying Column 5 of Schedule C without any multipliers, in recognition of the complexity of the Applications but also the efficiencies gained from overlapping issues. For Thunderstone, the Court declined to award second counsel fees due to the one-day hearing and the cooperative time limitations set by counsel. However, a 25% inflationary adjustment was granted, along with disbursements.

Unlike the case with Thunderstone, the steps that TSMVP took in each of the two Judicial Review Applications were not the same (TSMVP took more steps responding to BVES’ Judicial Review Application than it did in responding to Stoney Nakoda’s Judicial Review Application). To account for the fact that some, but not all of the steps taken in those two Actions overlapped, the Court granted Costs to TSMVP in each of the two Judicial Review Applications for the steps and disbursements as set out in its Bills of Costs, pursuant to Column 5 (with no multiplier). Second counsel fees were similarly not granted.