PINTER v PINTER, 2018 ABQB 943
9.13: Re-opening case
10.29: General rule for payment of litigation costs
The Applicant/Plaintiff applied to re-open the case following a matrimonial property Trial and after Reasons for Judgment had been provided, but prior to the formal Judgment being entered. The Plaintiff also sought Costs for the Trial.
Under Rule 9.13, the Court retains jurisdiction to vary its Judgment so long as the formal Judgment has not been entered. Rule 9.13 allows the Court to hear more evidence and vary its Judgment if “there is good reason to do so”.
The Plaintiff sought to adduce further evidence pertaining to the valuation of a Dungeons and Dragons figurine collection (the “Collection”). Neither party adduced evidence regarding the value of the Collection at Trial. The Plaintiff’s Application to re-open the case was in response to the Defendant’s failure to abide by the Reasons for Judgment which required him to produce the Collection to be divided between the Parties. The Plaintiff adduced evidence demonstrating that the Collection was insured for $20,000-$25,000 in the early 1980s. The Defendant asserted that the Collection had no value, without providing evidence. Justice Khullar set the value of the Collection at $35,000 presuming its increase in value over time.
Justice Khullar found that the Plaintiff was substantially successful at Trial, and that pursuant to Rule 10.29, the successful party is presumptively entitled to Costs. Justice Khullar set the amount of Costs at a reduced amount from the Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs, however noting that there was mixed success on certain issues, and that the Plaintiff’s conduct had “contributed to how this litigation […] unfolded”. The Application was granted.
View CanLII Details