CAMBARERI v CAMBARERI, 2026 ABKB 552

This was a costs decision following a summary Trial concerning matrimonial property and spousal support.

The litigation had continued for more than a decade and involved repeated failures by the Defendant and Third Party Defendant to provide financial disclosure and comply with Court Orders. Both had been found in contempt, and their pleadings were ultimately struck. The Plaintiff sought full indemnity costs and enforcement of recurring fines previously imposed for non-compliance with disclosure Orders.

Justice Dario confirmed that a substantially successful party was presumptively entitled to costs pursuant to Rule 10.29, subject to the Court’s discretion under Rule 10.31. The Court considered the factors under Rule 10.33, including the parties’ relative success, conduct that unnecessarily lengthened the Action, and non-compliance with Court Orders.

Although the Plaintiff was more successful overall, Justice Dario declined to award full indemnity costs. The Defendant’s repeated non-disclosure and disregard of Court Orders had significantly prolonged the litigation. The Court considered the significant consequences already imposed for the Defendant’s conduct and emphasized that a Costs Award should not penalize a party twice for the same misconduct.

With respect to the recurring fines, Dario J. noted that pursuant to Rule 12.41(7)(c), solicitor-client costs may be awarded for failures to provide disclosure. However, Justice Dario confirmed that Rule 12.41(7)(c) does not authorize indefinite and accumulating penalties payable to the opposing party. The Court further noted that fines imposed under Rules 10.49 and 10.53 were directed at the administration of justice and payable to the Clerk of the Court, rather than the opposing party.

Accordingly, Justice Dario declined to enforce the prior Orders as they imposed indefinite recurring fines payable to the Plaintiff. The Court distinguished those fines from costs, noting that costs were intended to reflect the reasonable and proper costs of litigation, while fines were intended to compel compliance and protect the administration of justice.

The Court also considered the Plaintiff’s request for security to enforce the amounts owing by the Defendant. Relying on Aubin v Petrone, 2020 ABCA 13 and Unterschultz v Clark, 2020 ABQB 338, Justice Dario held that it was appropriate to grant the Plaintiff a security interest in the Defendant’s shares in his closely held corporations.