The Applicant sought Permission to Appeal an Order for Costs following a seventeen-day Trial. Permission to appeal costs is required under Rule 14.5(1)(e).

Appeal Justice Wakeling outlined the two approaches for granting permission to appeal a Costs Award. Permission may be granted if the Applicant demonstrates that the alleged error raises a question of law of general importance, there is a strong likelihood of success on appeal, and the appeal will not hinder the progress of the action. Alternatively, the Applicant may argue that the order under appeal is clearly incorrect and should be overturned based on the overall circumstances.

The Applicant relied on the first approach, claiming that the Trial Judge had incorrectly awarded solicitor-client Costs of $468,182.80 and that the substantial amount justified an Appeal. The Applicant argued that Costs for Trial preparation should not have been awarded, given the Trial Judge’s statement that complete indemnity or solicitor-client Costs were not warranted. Additionally, the Applicant relied on Stoney v 1985 Sawridge Trust, 2017 ABCA 368, which emphasized that “where large sums are involved a further appeal may well be justified”.

Wakeling J.A. found that the Applicant failed to establish a question of law of general importance, and the likelihood of success on Appeal was estimated at around ten percent. The Costs Award represented sixty-two percent of the actual legal fees, and the Trial Judge had appropriately found enhanced Costs were warranted. Additionally, Wakeling J.A. noted, while unaware of any case where the Court granted permission to appeal solely due to a substantial costs award, that such awards are common in lengthy trials and do not alone justify an appeal. The Court held that since the Costs Award covered a period of over ten years, the award, while substantial, was neither unexpected nor rooted in a legal determination of general importance.

Consequently, Wakeling J.A. denied the Application for Permission to Appeal.