The Applicant sought Costs against the Edmonton Police Service for a variety of steps he took to advance his case. The Action was commenced by Originating Application, and the Court noted that the form applicable to Rule 3.8 stated what information must be provided on an Originating Application. The Court observed that Rule 3.8 does not state whether Briefs are required at an Originating Application.

The Applicant had filed 3 Briefs. The Court stated that, although the Applicant was required to prepare a brief for the special Application, filing 3 briefs was exceptional and would be at the upper limit for a Costs Claim. However, due to the difficulties which the Applicant had in having the matter heard in an expeditious way, it was acceptable that new Briefs were prepared as circumstances changed.

The Applicant also sought Costs for an adjournment Application which he opposed and lost. The Court declined to grant him Costs regarding the Application, stating:

The court probably does not have jurisdiction to grant costs with respect to an application which Mr. Gladue unsuccessfully opposed before another judge: R. 10.29(1) suggests that Mr. Gladue is already liable for costs to Canada for having unsuccessfully opposed its motion for an adjournment of the hearing. …

The Applicant’s claim for Costs was varied by awarding a lower amount in accordance to what was typically granted by Assessment Officers.