The Court considered whether to award Costs under Rule 10.33 following the revocation of an Emergency Protection Order (“EPO”). The Respondent argued that Costs should be granted on a full indemnity or enhanced basis, alleging that the Claimant pursued the EPO for a collateral purpose and engaged in litigation misconduct. The Claimant opposed any cost award, emphasizing that the Court had made no findings of bad faith or frivolousness in the EPO hearing and that awarding Costs in such proceedings was rare.

Justice Jones analyzed the factors under Rule 10.33 to determine whether Costs were warranted. Under Rule 10.33(1)(c), the Court acknowledged the importance of the issues at stake in an EPO proceeding, given its purpose of preventing family violence and protecting vulnerable individuals. However, Justice Jones balanced this against the principle that awarding costs in such cases could deter victims from seeking protection.

The Respondent relied on several factors under Rule 10.33(2) to justify enhanced costs, including allegations that the Claimant unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings (Rules 10.33(2)(a) and (f)), presented evidence contradicted by video footage (Rule 10.33(2)(d)), and rejected reasonable settlement offers (Rule 10.33(2)(h)). While the Court acknowledged these arguments, it held that they did not outweigh the fundamental objectives of the Protection Against Family Violence Act, RSA 2000, c P-27. Specifically, the Court cautioned against awarding costs merely because an EPO interfered with a Respondent’s parenting time, as this could create a chilling effect on future Applications.

Jones J. further examined whether the EPO was sought for a collateral purpose, referencing past cases where adverse costs were granted in the “clearest cases” of abuse of process. While the Claimant’s credibility was questioned regarding certain aspects of her allegations, the Court found no definitive evidence of bad faith or vexatious intent. Given the high threshold for awarding costs in EPO matters, the Court declined to grant any Costs, reinforcing the principle that adverse cost awards should be reserved for exceptional cases where the legislative intent behind EPOs would not be undermined by the award.