Jones J

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

The Respondent, Palmer, obtained an ex parte Emergency Protection Order (“EPO”) from the Provincial Court of Alberta against the Applicants, Palmer’s ex-husband and his mother. The Applicants sought a review of the EPO by the Court of Queen’s Bench, and Palmer sought an Order from the Court pursuant to section 4 of the Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27 (the “Act”). Jones J. rejected the Applicants’ request for an Order setting the EPO aside nunc pro tunc, but did accommodate the request to abridge time for service. Upon review, Jones J. revoked the EPO and declined Palmer’s request for an Order pursuant to section 4 of the Act. The matter again came before the Court when the parties were unable to agree on Costs.

Jones J. considered Rules 10.29, 10.31, 10.33, as well as the objectives of the Act and the importance that society attaches to protecting its vulnerable members from family violence. Jones J. further noted the Act prohibits making a frivolous or vexatious complaint with malicious intent, but does not provide a sanction for doing so. His Lordship did not hold that Palmer acted vexatiously or maliciously. The Court noted that success in the Application was mixed. Justice Jones did not consider it reasonable to use judicial discretion to make a Costs award to achieve a result that legislation did not provide; as such, the parties were ordered to bear their own Costs.

View CanLII Details