The Court previously allowed the Appellant’s Appeal (the “Appeal”). The Appellant, a self-represented litigant, now sought party and party Costs under Schedule C, Column 5, and the return of the $3,000 in Costs ordered against her in the most recent Judicial Review Application.

The Appellant was ultimately awarded Costs under Schedule C, Column 1 for specific items related to the Appeal and new evidence Applications. The Respondent was ordered to return $3,000 to the Appellant and pay her $7823.59 in costs and disbursements, plus applicable GST.

Rowbotham, Pentelechuk, and Ho J.J.A. considered Rules 14.88(1) and 10.31(5) and determined that while self-represented litigants are normally not entitled to Costs for legal fees they did not incur, the Appellant’s case warranted an exception. The Appellant’s previous legal representation and her familiarity with the case record contributed significantly to the merits of her Appeal. In reaching that conclusion, Rowbotham, Pentelechuk, and Ho J.J.A. commented that the Court will award Costs to a self-represented litigant if it would serve one of the policy reasons. These policy reasons include encouraging settlement, preventing frivolous, vexatious or harassing litigation, and encouraging economy and efficiency during litigation.

Rowbotham, Pentelechuk, and Ho J.J.A. also noted that the Respondent’s delay in disclosing the existence of an evidence (the “Evidence”) exacerbated the litigation process. Costs for both the Appeal and the new evidence Applications were justified because they were crucial to the successful outcome of the Appeal. Rowbotham, Pentelechuk, and Ho J.J.A. disagreed with the Respondent on excluding Costs for the McKenzie Friend Application and the second Appeal hearing, awarding Costs for these items as well.

When determining the quantum of Costs to be awarded, Rowbotham, Pentelechuk, and Ho J.J.A. considered Rule 14.88(3) and determined that Costs under Schedule C, Column 1 was appropriate.

The Appellant sought for enhanced Costs which she supported by reference to her repeated requests for the Evidence. Rowbotham, Pentelechuk, and Ho J.J.A., citing Kantor v Kantor, 2023 ABCA 329, commented that while conduct which unnecessarily delays proceedings can justify enhanced Costs, when Appeal Costs are at issue, the delay must relate to the Appeal. There was nothing in the Respondent’s conduct that resulted in any delay of the Appeal. As such, the appropriate quantum of Costs was found to be Schedule C, Column 1.