The Plaintiffs sought leave to Appeal an Order of Costs made in relation to an adjournment Application, as required under the old Rule 505(3) which states:

No … order made … as to costs only shall be subject to any appeal, except by leave of the court … making the order.

While the Plaintiffs were successful in their adjournment Application, the Court stated that it was troubled by the approach the Plaintiffs and their legal counsel had taken with respect to the litigation, and invited the Parties to address the issue of Costs. The Court reviewed the Parties’ filed submissions on Costs and ruled that the Plaintiffs, despite being successful in the Application, were to immediately pay to the Respondents the Costs of the adjournment Application on the basis of Schedule C, Column 3.

In determining whether or not to grant the Plaintiffs leave to Appeal the Costs Decision, the Court found that the standard of review that the Alberta Court of Appeal would apply when considering an Appeal from a Costs Decision was a clear, palpable and overriding error. Yamauchi J. went on to state that the Applicants failed to demonstrate that the Court made a clear, palpable and overriding error as Rules 10.31 and 10.33 give the “Court the ability to depart from the general rule that a successful party to an application will be awarded costs”. Further, “an applicant for an adjournment may be required to pay the costs of an application, even if successful, if the adjournment results from some fault of the applicant”. The Court found that the Applicants did not meet the timelines imposed by the Court and as a result the Respondents incurred significant costs. Therefore, the Court’s Decision to award Costs against the successful Applicant was not in error and the Application for leave to Appeal was denied.