OOMMEN v CAPITAL REGION HOUSING CORPORATION, 2017 ABCA 283
9.4: Signing judgments and orders
14.41: Responses to applications to single appeal judges
The Applicant had previously applied for, and was denied, an extension of time to appeal. The Respondent, the Capital Region Housing Corporation (“CRHC”), sought Costs and the invocation of Rule 9.4(2)(c), which would allow for the Court clerk to sign a Judgment or Order if the Court directed that approval of the form of the Order or Judgment by a party was not required.
Justice Crighton noted that ordinarily the successful party in an Application is entitled to Costs. However, a party is not entitled to Costs when it fails to meet a procedural step unless the Court orders otherwise. Her Ladyship referred to Rule 14.41, which requires a Respondent to file materials more than 5 days prior to an Application before a single Judge, and Rule 14.90, which provides that parties who do not comply with a deadline are not entitled to recover Costs or disbursements, unless the Court makes an Order to the contrary. CRHC argued it should be entitled to Costs because the Applicant had not confirmed counsel’s availability to hear his Application before scheduling it, and because the Applicant insisted on service by process server, rather than email. Crighton J.A. noted that the Applicant had complied with the Rules of Court in providing the minimum notice required, and CRHC did not have difficulty serving him.
As such, Justice Crighton held that Rule 9.4(2)(c) should be invoked, but that both parties should bear their own Costs.View CanLII Details