GAULT ESTATE (RE), 2017 ABQB 182
3.74: Adding, removing or substituting parties after close of pleadings
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
10.31: Court-ordered costs award
Following the Defendant’s successful Application to strike the Plaintiff’s new Action, the Defendant sought full-indemnity solicitor client Costs. The Plaintiff had commenced a new Action amidst a number of proceedings which were under Case Management which was dismissed as an abuse of process and for failing to disclose a cause of action.
The parties agreed that the successful party to an Application was entitled to Costs subject to the Court’s general discretion to award Costs under Rules 10.29 and 10.31. Mahoney J. observed that full-indemnity Costs are an exception, and should be made in accordance with established principles. Justice Mahoney held that this was not a case where the novelty and complexity of issues required complete indemnification for Costs, but that it was not a “run of the mill” special chambers Application.
His Lordship noted that the Defendant had successfully argued that the new Action was an attempt to circumvent Rule 3.74, which restricts when new parties may be added to an Action following the close of Pleadings. Following consideration of this factor and the other circumstances of the case, Mahoney J. awarded 50% of the amount of full-indemnity Costs to the Defendant.View CanLII Details