The Applicant, Daniels Sharpsmart Canada Ltd. (“Daniels”), responded to a request for proposals issued by the Respondent, Alberta Health Services (“AHS”). Daniels was unsuccessful and, upon learning it was not going to get the contract, sought an Injunction to halt negotiations between AHS and the successful bidder. Prior to the injunction, AHS offered to accept a consent discontinuance of the Application in exchange for Daniels paying Schedule C Costs, which Daniels rejected. The Injunction was denied, and the parties returned to Court to address Costs.

AHS sought solicitor-client Costs, alleging that the Injunction was motivated by Daniels malice against the successful bidder, which was a competitor. The Court began by noting that it had broad discretion pursuant to Rule 10.31 when awarding Costs and that Rule 10.33 set out factors that may assist the Court in exercising its discretion. The Court rejected that it was an appropriate case for solicitor-client Costs, finding that Daniels had not engaged in any litigation misconduct. In the result, the Court held that AHS was entitled to Costs in the amount of $14,175, which was based on 2x column 1 of Schedule C with an additional multiplier of 1.5x to account for the offer to settle made by AHS that was rejected.