KLIPPSTEIN v KAPASIWIN (SUMMER VILLAGE), 2018 ABQB 407
4.24: Formal offers to settle
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
10.31: Court-ordered costs award
SCHEDULE C: Tariff of Recoverable Fees
Following the dismissal of an Application by the Applicant, Klippstein, to discharge an easement, Nation J. addressed the issue of Costs. The Respondent, Summer Village, sought Costs based on Column 5 of Schedule C including double Costs after a Formal Offer to Settle was served. The remaining Respondents (who were included by Court Order) requested single Costs based on Column 5 of Schedule C. Klippstein argued that he should not have to pay any Costs on the basis that his Application was in the public interest; that the Respondents by Court Order were intervenors who were not entitled to Costs; and that the Formal Offer to Settle did not comply with Rule 4.24.
Nation J. confirmed that Rule 10.29 provides that a successful party in litigation is entitled to Costs subject to the Court’s discretion, and Rule 10.31 gives the Court wide discretion when awarding Costs by allowing the Court to consider numerous factors including the degree of success, the amount in issue, the importance of the issues, complexity, and any other factor the Court deems appropriate and relevant. Nation J. held that Costs in this case should be awarded based on Column 5 of Schedule C as the Application required a significant amount of research and canvassed a wide variety of legal issues.
Nation J. noted that the Respondents by Court Order were not intervenors, but interested parties required to be served with the Application. Moreover, though there had been discussion between the Parties about the easement prior to the Application, this did not mean that the Application was in the public interest as argued by Klippstein. Finally, Justice Nation found that the Formal Offer to Settle in this case did comply with Rule 4.24; however, double Costs were not awarded as requested. Justice Nation found that it would have been difficult for Klippstein to accept an Offer to Settle from only one party, so Klippstein’s refusal of the Formal Offer to Settle was reasonable in the circumstances. Costs were awarded to the Respondents.View CanLII Details