In a prior hearing, the Criminal Trial Lawyers Association (“CTLA”) sought to intervene in a Restricted Court Access Application in a case of alleged police negligence. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen denied that Application. The Defendant police officers then sought Costs against CTLA in the amount of $12,000 (approximately 50% of their solicitor-client costs).

Neilson ACJ referred to Rules 10.29 and 10.31 in support of the general Rule that broad discretion should be offered to the Court in a Costs decision. Associate Chief Justice Nielsen further relied on the factors set out in Rule 10.33 to be considered when issuing a Costs Award. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the general legal principal in Alberta has been that intervenors will bear their own Costs, but that does not mean that intervenors are never liable for Costs. This general Rule serves to recognize the importance of public interest intervenors. Therefore, when the interest advanced is a private one, such as advancing a business interest, there is nothing preventing a proposed intervenor from bearing costs.

Nielsen ACJ therefore determined that the central issue was the characterisation of the prior Application. If the Court agreed that the Application was primarily private in nature, then the Court could find that this was an appropriate Case to award Costs.

Notably, the parties were unable to find reported cases dealing with Rule 6.35 and its interaction with Rule 2.10. Associate Chief Justice Neilson found the case of Smyth v Edmonton (City) Police Service, 2005 ABQB 652 to be of assistance, but not definitive against the backdrop of the new Rules of Court.

The Court ultimately held that the Application did not advance a private interest, as there was no financial or business benefit that CTLA could expect to flow from intervening. Further, Nielsen A.C.J. determined that the goal of the Application of CTLA was to act as a voice for vulnerable populations and “a significant costs award in this case may serve only as another barrier to that engagement”. As a result, it was ordered that each party bear their own Costs of the Application.