In this Endorsement on Costs, the Court considered the applicable cost consequences under Rules 4.24, 4.29, and 10.33 following the Applicant father’s successful shared parenting Application. The father sought enhanced Costs on the basis of a Calderbank Offer made prior to the commencement of the parenting Application. The Respondent mother conceded entitlement to Costs but disputed the amount, arguing that the Offer did not meet the requirements of a Formal Offer under Rule 4.24(2) and therefore could not attract the doubling provisions of Rule 4.29.

The Court acknowledged that only Formal Offers to Settle, compliant with Rule 4.24(2), may presumptively trigger the cost-doubling mechanism under Rule 4.29. However, citing Bruen v University of Calgary, 2019 ABCA 275, the Court noted that informal offers such as Calderbank offers remain relevant to the exercise of discretion on costs, even though they do not result in automatic doubling. In assessing the father’s Calderbank offer, the Court found it was reasonable and should have been accepted in light of the eventual outcome. The Court emphasized that settlement should be encouraged, particularly in family law matters involving children, and awarded enhanced costs accordingly.

In exercising its discretion under Rule 10.33, the Court considered the outcome of the proceeding, the reasonableness of the parties’ positions, and the parties’ conduct, including the mother’s counsel’s initiative in correcting a factual error in the original decision. While the father sought $5,400 in Costs based on a doubled claim under Schedule C, the Court applied the reasoning from HOOPP Realty Inc v Guarantee Company of North America, 2019 ABQB 104, and found that a Notice of Application is not a commencement document, and Affidavit preparation is subsumed within Item 8(1).

The Court ultimately awarded the father an enhanced lump sum of $2,500 under Item 8(1), reflecting both the Calderbank Offer and other relevant considerations under Rule 10.33.