DBF v BF, 2013 ABQB 16


10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
10.31: Court-ordered costs award
10.33: Court considerations in making costs award
SCHEDULE C: Tariff of Recoverable Fees

Case Summary

Justice Jones issued a Judgment implementing shared parenting arrangements and ordered that the Parties retain joint custody of the child. The Parties were also directed to provide written submissions regarding Costs, including Costs incurred in connection with the direction of the Court that a Family Law Practice Note 7 Intervention be conducted, which resulted in a report issued by Glenda Lux, Registered Psychologist (“Lux Report”).

Jones J. held that Costs should be awarded in favour of BF regarding the Application, computed in accordance with Column 1 of Division 2, Schedule C of the Rules. This Decision was based on consideration of Rule 10.29, which provided that the successful Party to an Application should be awarded Costs. In this case, BF was successful in securing the relief he sought. Jones J. also noted that Rule 10.29 was subject to the Court’s discretion under Rule 10.31, which required that the Court take into account the factors specified under Rule 10.33. Jones J. considered the factors under Rule 10.33 and noted that none of those factors suggested a departure from the notion that a successful Party should be entitled to Costs.

Additionally, consideration of these factors did not suggest a departure from the commentary in the Rules where it was noted that, “[U]nless the Court otherwise orders, matters which have no monetary amounts, for example, injunctions, will be dealt with under Column 1”. The Application in this case did not involve a monetary amount and, in his submissions, BF did not elaborate on why Column 2, should apply to this case. Jones J. noted that the Court was at liberty to depart from Column 1, but saw no reason to do so. Neither were the factors set out in Rule 10.33(2) seen as being of particular significance regarding this Decision on Costs.

Concerning the Costs of the Lux Report, Jones J. held that it they should be borne equally by the Parties. The notion of equal responsibility motivated the primary commitments of the Parties and the Lux Report helped the Court better assess how to respond to conflicting views; therefore, it was held as logical that the Parties share those Costs.

View CanLII Details