HOROBEC v TRAN, 2026 ABKB 598

This was a costs decision following an Application to compel financial disclosure in child support litigation. In the underlying proceedings, the Applicant sought retroactive and ongoing child support from the Respondent, the payor parent, who had provided no financial disclosure for eighteen years, despite three previous disclosure Orders. The Court ordered full financial disclosure under Section 21 of the Alberta Child Support Guidelines, Alta Reg 147/2005. The Applicant sought solicitor-client costs. The Respondent argued that success was mixed and that costs should await Trial.

Under Rule 10.29, a successful party is presumptively entitled to costs. Solicitor-client costs are reserved for rare and exceptional circumstances involving misconduct described as scandalous, outrageous or reprehensible.

Applying the factors in Rule 10.33, Justice McGuire found that there was mixed success, but the Applicant was substantially successful on the most important issue—the disclosure itself. The opposition was not grounded in any difficult legal principle. It was “simple obstinance”, and the Respondent was fully responsible for the non-disclosure that made the Application necessary. The Court also rejected the Respondent’s attempt to revisit the disclosure ruling through the costs submissions, noting that costs submissions are not an opportunity to bring a new Application under Rule 9.14 or vary a decision already made.

McGuire J. held that eighteen years of non-disclosure and non-compliance with three disclosure Orders was blameworthy conduct that frustrated the litigation, warranting solicitor-client costs. The Court awarded the Applicant a lump sum of $7,500, representing a little more than three times the Schedule C amount.