This was a Costs Endorsement following the Judicial Review Decision in MEG Energy Corp v Alberta (Minister of Energy), 2025 ABKB 479. The Respondent, Alberta, sought Costs after succeeding on nearly all issues. MEG Energy Corp (“MEG”) argued that each party should bear its own Costs or that Costs should be apportioned, given MEG’s limited success on one issue where the Court found a minor breach of procedural fairness.

Justice Eamon reviewed the principles governing Costs Awards, confirming that, pursuant to Rule 10.29, a successful party is presumptively entitled to Costs, subject to the Court’s discretion under Rule 10.21. Justice Eamon noted that the Court may vary or apportion Costs in accordance with the factors in Rule 10.33(1) and (2), including the complexity of the matter, importance of the issues, conduct of the parties, and whether any steps were unnecessary or improper.

Eamon J. held that Alberta was substantially successful and entitled to Costs despite a minor, non-prejudicial breach of procedural fairness. Justice Eamon noted that MEG succeeded only on one discrete issue in the Judicial Review. The Court highlighted that MEG’s successful argument was severable from the broader proceeding. Accordingly, Justice Eamon apportioned Costs 80% in Alberta’s favour.

In quantifying Costs, Justice Eamon found that Schedule C, Column 1 was inadequate due to the complexity, high value, and technical nature of the dispute, the volume of records, and the importance of the issues. Applying Rules 10.31 and 10.33, Eamon J. determined that Schedule C, Column 5 at the Appeal Court scale, without a multiplier, was appropriate. Justice Eamon permitted fees for second counsel due to the complexity of the matter and the dual representation.

In the result, Justice Eamon awarded $28,485 in Costs, apportioned 80% to Alberta, and 20% to MEG, with disbursements and GST to be finalized between the parties.