KATERYNYCH v POISSON, 2026 ABKB 635

The Respondent was successful in dismissing the Applicant’s Originating Application and sought costs based on 50% of actual legal costs incurred. The Applicant argued that a specific lump sum award was more appropriate and that the Respondent had failed to provide a Schedule C costs analysis as contemplated in Barkwell v McDoFnald, 2023 ABCA 87 (“Barkwell”). The Applicant further contended that some of the costs sought by the Respondent were incurred in relation to a separate Action.

Justice Lew accepted the Applicant’s submissions that some of the costs included in the Respondent’s calculation pertained to another Action and ought not to form part of the Costs Award. The Court confirmed that Barkwell directs parties seeking indemnity costs to provide a Schedule C costs analysis as a benchmark. Lew J. noted that Schedule C column 1 applied to disputes valued at less than $75,000 and non-financial relief. Justice Lew further highlighted that family law matters often involve non-financial relief but could still involve complex factual or legal issues.

Having regard to the significant importance of the underlying family law issue to the parties, the Court’s discretion in awarding costs espoused in Barkwell, and the factors under Rule 10.33(1)(a), (c), and (g), Lew J. awarded lump sum costs of $1,500.