This was an Application by Beant Singh Gill seeking an Injunction to prevent Khalsa Credit Union (Alberta) Limited from conducting a Special General Meeting intended to remove Mr. Gill and another director from their positions. The urgency of the Application stemmed from its aim to halt the meeting scheduled for March 17, 2024, only days after the Application was presented in Court. Despite Mr. Gill’s efforts, the Court dismissed the Injunction Application in its entirety and subsequently addressed the issue of Costs. In their submissions, Khalsa Credit Union requested full-indemnity costs amounting to $36,875.75, while Mr. Gill advocated for a Costs Award based on Schedule C, estimated at approximately $9,100.

The Court underscored that there are no special exceptions for Injunctions concerning Costs; the standard rules apply, thus enabling the successful party an immediate award of Costs. The Court referenced the Court of Appeal's decision in McAllister v Calgary (City), which clarified the discretionary spectrum available under Rule 10.31(1). The Court also recognized its broad discretion to award Costs, pursuant to Rules 10.31 to 10.33.

The Court noted the Barkwell v McDonald, 2023 ABCA 87 decision, highlighting that there are no presumptions favouring the use of a percentage of actual legal expenses or adherence to Schedule C for setting Costs. Instead, the guiding principles include proportionality and reasonableness, anchored by factors outlined in Rules 10.2 and 10.33, which dictate what is deemed a reasonable fee.

In determining the appropriate quantum of Costs, the Court considered the actual work performed by the lawyers for Khalsa Credit Union, the absence of a formal Bill of Costs, and the overall context of the litigation, which involved significant efforts on short notice. Although the credit union did not fully justify its claimed expenses with detailed documentation, the Court found that the amount requested was not found wholly unreasonable given the circumstances.

Ultimately, exercising its discretion under Rules 10.29, 10.31, and 10.33, the Court considered the urgency, complexity of the matter, and the substantial efforts expended by both parties. A lump sum of $15,750 was awarded to Khalsa Credit Union.