This decision addressed the Costs associated with a previous ruling in JH Drilling Inc. v Barsi Enterprises Ltd., 2025 ABKB 288. The Action involved a breach of contract claim and a counterclaim for misrepresentation. The Plaintiff applied for Summary Judgment on the claim and for Summary Dismissal of the counterclaim. Justice Harris, as Case Management Justice, dismissed the Application and awarded costs to the Defendant. The parties were unable to agree on the quantum.

The Defendant sought enhanced costs of $15,000 on account of the Statement of Claim exceeding $4 million. It argued the Court had wide discretion to award costs greater than the $6,750 prescribed by Column 5 of Schedule C as that amount would be inadequate in the circumstances. The Defendant had incurred significant time to contend the Plaintiff’s materials, which were voluminous and unclear and unnecessarily complicated the Application.

The Plaintiff argued that costs of $4,725 were reasonable because the claim was for $560,000, not $4 million, as the Plaintiff made an offer to settle, along with several “concessions” prior to the Application. Therefore, the costs should be based on Column 3 of Schedule C. Further, the Plaintiff argued that the matter was not nearly as complex as alleged by the Defendant.

Justice Harris emphasized that a quantum determination is inherently discretionary and must be based on the principles of reasonableness, balance, fairness, and equity. The non-exhaustive list of factors under Rule 10.33 guides the discretion. Harris J. reiterated that the Defendant was entitled to a costs award in accordance with the default rule of being the party substantially successful. The Court acknowledged that parties are required to negotiate and attempt to reach a resolution as per Rules 1.2(2) and 1.2(3). However, pursuant to Rule 4.29, there are consequences if a party makes a reasonable offer that is not accepted by another. To trigger the cost consequences under Rule 4.29, the party who advanced an offer must demonstrate that it beat the offer at trial or at an application.

In determining the claim amount, the Court noted that while the Plaintiff purported to have advanced a settlement offer and “concessions”, it failed to beat them and was entirely unsuccessful on its Application. Harris J. determined that the Costs Award should be based on the amount pleaded in the Statement of Claim, which fell under Column 5.

Justice Harris considered the factors under Rule 10.33 to determine whether the Costs Award under Column 5 should be enhanced. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s manner of presentation for the Application was highly inefficient and rendered the Application far more complex than necessary, which required the Defendant to incur a significant amount of time to respond. Given this and Rule 1.2, the Plaintiff’s conduct attracted some form of enhanced costs. However, the Court declined to use the Defendant’s proposed measure for enhanced costs as it did not present any evidence to support its claim that defending the Application required more than 70 hours of counsel time. Harris J. applied a multiplier of two and awarded double Column 5 costs in the amount of $13,500.