This Costs Decision arose from the dismissal of the Appeal in Doerksen Estate (Re), 2024 ABCA 129. The Appellant, a residual beneficiary of her mother’s Estate, opposed the approval of the Estate’s accounts and assets distribution. The Appellant was ordered to pay costs of $2,500 by the Chambers Judge who approved the Estate’s accounts.

The Respondents sought double Schedule C costs based on an informal Calderbank Offer they had made before the Appeal. The Appellant did not accept or reject the Offer. The Court of Appeal found that while the Offer did not comply with the formal requirements of Rule 4.24, it was a genuine Calderbank Offer and open for acceptance for a reasonable time. If accepted, the Offer would have left the Appellant $5,000 better off compared to the Appeal’s outcome.

The Court of Appeal noted that since the Offer did not comply with Rule 4.24, it was not bound to double the costs under Rule 4.29 for steps taken by the Respondents after the Offer was served. However, the Court exercised its discretion and awarded enhanced costs. The Respondents received $8,075 in Appeal Costs, plus disbursements and GST, and an additional $500 for the Costs Application.