LAIRD v (ALBERTA) MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT, 2020 ABQB 415
3.68: Court options to deal with significant deficiencies
6.9: How the Court considers applications
9.2: Preparation of judgments and orders
9.5: Entry of judgments and orders
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
10.33: Court considerations in making costs award
Jones J. previously struck the Applicant’s Action against the Respondents pursuant to Rule 3.68 as an abuse of process. However, the Respondents did not prepare a formal Court Order and did not send a draft Order and Bill of Costs to the Court until more than three months later. The Respondents’ draft Bill of Costs claimed only Schedule C amounts and disbursements. The Applicant objected to the draft Order per Rule 9.5(2) and disputed the draft Bill of Costs.
Justice Jones held that the Respondents’ draft Order could only be granted by way of an Application under Rule 9.5(2) because it was provided to the Court more than three months after the Order was pronounced. His Lordship instructed the Respondents to file an Application for a late Court Order per Rule 9.5(2) which would proceed as a document-only process under Rule 6.9(1).
Justice Jones also determined that the draft Bill of Costs was reasonable. The Respondents claimed only Schedule C Costs, and enhanced Costs would have been justified per Rule 10.33 because the Applicant’s Action was an abuse of process.View CanLII Details