The Plaintiff, RK, sought to amend his Statement of Claim against multiple Defendants, including SP, GSG, APG, MG, and others. In RK v GSG, 2024 ABKB 661, Mah J. approved certain amendments and disallowed others. This Decision dealt with Costs of that Application. The Court considered the following factors:

1. The successful party is presumptively entitled to costs: Rule 10.29(1).
2. The determination of costs is inherently discretionary, and the exercise of that discretion must be based on the judicial principles of reasonableness, fairness, balance and equity: JBRO Holdings Inc v Dynasty Power Inc, 2022 ABCA 258 at para 26, Rule 10.31.
3. The relevant considerations for a costs award are found in Rule 10.33 and include, among others, the result, complexity, and whether a matter was unnecessarily or improperly brought.

Justice Mah further noted the need to establish consistency and to maintain proportionality in costs awards, provide meaningful (if only partial) indemnity to the successful party, and promote the deterrent and incentive effects of costs awards.

Turning to the facts at hand, Justice Mah found that the Defendants were substantially successful in resisting the substantive amendments proposed by RK, particularly those aimed at expanding liability. The Court noted that while some amendments were approved, they were mostly cosmetic and non-contentious. The Defendants successfully limited their exposure.  Thus, from an overall perspective, the Defendants were substantially successful as they resisted these substantive amendments. Thus, they were “qualitatively and quantitatively more successful than RK”. The Court exercised discretion to award Costs to the Defendants.