FEENEY v SIMON, 2020 ABQB 641
6.9: How the Court considers applications
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
10.31: Court-ordered costs award
10.33: Court considerations in making costs award
The Plaintiff and Defendants both filed several Applications in three related lawsuits emerging from allegations of police and prosecutorial wrongdoing.
The Plaintiff had applied to find Alberta and two Crown Prosecutors in Contempt of Court (the “Contempt Application”). Justice Anderson had previously ordered the Contempt Application to be adjourned sine die, to be heard at a Special Application. Subsequently, Justice Poelman ordered that the Contempt Application would be heard as a Special Application in October of 2020. Associate Chief Justice Rooke then held that, as Case Management Judge, the Contempt Application would take place before him.
Associate Chief Justice Rooke held that in the interest of ensuring that the Plaintiff had the full opportunity to make submissions, and considering COVID-19, the Application would be conducted on a document-only basis pursuant to Rule 6.9(1)(c). His Lordship then provided a timeline for Affidavit evidence. Finally, His Lordship required the Respondents to prepare and serve the Case Management Order regarding the timelines and held that, pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c), the Applicant’s approval of the Order was dispensed with.
The Defendant, Alberta, had filed an Application that sought a Court Order to remove documentary material (the “Confidential Materials”) from the Court files of the first two Actions. In determining that the Confidential Materials the Plaintiff had filed in the first two Actions should be removed from the record, Associate Chief Justice Rooke noted that Alberta was presumptively due Costs because of its success on its Application, pursuant to Rule 10.29(1). Further, His Lordship highlighted that the Court has broad authority per Rule 10.31 to determine whether Costs should be awarded, and their quantum. Lastly, in noting the Plaintiff’s expanding litigation misconduct and in awarding Alberta an elevated lump sum Cost Award, the Court confirmed that, pursuant to Rule 10.33(2)(g), the misconduct of a party is a relevant factor in determining the quantum of Costs awarded.View CanLII Details