Plaintiffs’ counsel proposed a Litigation Plan in a standard case in February 2012 and received no response from Defence counsel. After two attempts in May and June, 2012 to elicit a response, the Plaintiffs prepared an Affidavit and filed an Application, returnable in July 2012. Defence counsel then consented to the Litigation Plan but when Plaintiffs’ counsel asked the other side for Costs of their abandoned Application, they received no response. Plaintiffs’ counsel then told Defence counsel that they would be appearing on the date of their abandoned Application to ask for Costs and no objection was raised. 

Master Schlosser considered the commentary regarding abandoned Motions in the Alberta Law Reform Institute’s Consultation Memorandum No. 12.17. The Committee’s position in the Memorandum was that some Costs should be made available to the Party who was forced to commence an Application in order to get the opposite Party to move forward. Master Schlosser felt that Costs of an abandoned Application appeared to be captured in Rule 10.31(1)(a), the section that speaks to the Costs to “file” an Application, but stated that such Costs were more explicitly captured in Schedule C, Item 7(c). In the result, the Court awarded the Applicant 50% of Schedule C, Item 6(1) for an uncontested Application.