This was a Costs Decision. The Plaintiff sued the Alberta New Democratic Party (Alberta NDP). Due to being an unincorporated association structured with an invalid Trustee, the Plaintiff also named the New Democrats of Canada Association (Federal NDP) as a Defendant. The parties had reached an Agreement to appoint a representative for the Alberta NDP that would release the Federal NDP; however, the Alberta NDP reneged on the Agreement. Further legal proceedings ensued, leading to this Costs Decision.

Justice Dario acknowledged that the parties agreed the Plaintiff was successful in the proceedings before her and was therefore entitled to costs. The Plaintiff argued for costs against the Federal NDP due to its unsuccessful application to strike or summarily dismiss the Statement of Claim and sought a multiplier due to the conduct of the parties. The Federal NDP argued that costs should only be awarded for the previous Costs Appeal and not for the Striking Application because the Plaintiff took no position. The Alberta NDP argued that its issues were minor compared to those involving the Federal NDP and that it was not a formal party to the proceedings pursuant to Rule 10.28 and should therefore not bear costs.

Both Defendants took the position that Schedule C was the appropriate method and the Federal NDP claimed Column 5 was appropriate. The Court noted that despite that the Federal NDP had argued for solicitor-client costs before the Applications Judge in the previous Costs Decision, now that it was the payor, it conceded that Schedule C was the default position. The Federal NDP contended that elevated costs are only awarded where there is misconduct or increased complexity in line with the factors set out in Rule 10.33.

Dario J. awarded the Plaintiff costs of $22,680. The Court found that the Alberta NDP’s failure to honour its agreement necessitated further litigation which justified the award of costs against it. The Federal NDP’s unsuccessful applications also warranted costs against it. Dario J. determined that the complexity of the case and the conduct of the Alberta NDP in reneging on the Agreement and the subsequent delay in proceedings justified a multiplier of two for costs. Additionally, the Court found that the Alberta NDP’s conduct amounted to litigation misconduct. The Court held that Alberta NDP and the Federal NDP were jointly and severally liable for Costs.