KOEHLER v MISKEW, 2026 ABKB 634

The underlying Action arose from a family dispute between the Applicant, Yogi, and the Respondents, Nola and Ida, concerning their mother, Eugenia Yvonne Miskew ("Jean"), and the ownership of farm property held by Jean and the Applicant as joint tenants.

Pursuant to Jean's Personal Directive and Enduring Power of Attorney, the Applicant and the Respondents had been appointed to act jointly on Jean's behalf, with decisions to be made by majority where unanimous agreement could not be reached.

In Spring 2021, the Respondents, acting as two of Jean's three attorneys, severed the joint tenancy in the farm property without the Applicant's knowledge or participation. The Applicant had resided on the property with his family since 2007. The dispute resulted in litigation, including a Partition and Sale Application filed by the Respondents in October 2022, an Application by the Applicant in August 2023 for Advice and Direction and a January 2024 Application by the Applicant for restoration of the joint tenancy.

On February 26, 2025, the parties entered into a mediation-arbitration agreement to resolve their disputes. The matter proceeded to arbitration. The Arbitrator released an Award on August 14, 2025, finding, among other things, that the Respondents lacked authority to sever the joint tenancy and directing that the joint tenancy be restored.

The Arbitrator awarded costs to the Applicant. In doing so, the Arbitrator reviewed the factors set out in Rule 10.33 of the Rules of Court and concluded that the arbitration involved complex issues and that the proceedings had been made more difficult by the Respondents' resistance. The Arbitrator acknowledged that solicitor-client costs are generally reserved for reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct. The Arbitrator concluded that the Respondents’ conduct did not rise to the level necessary to justify a solicitor-client Costs Award.

The Arbitrator then considered Schedule C. She found that an award under Column 1, which would have resulted in costs of only $29,259.50, was unreasonable given that the Applicant had incurred actual legal fees of approximately $240,334.01. The Arbitrator applied Column 4 of Schedule C and awarded the Applicant $79,782.50 in legal fees, plus disbursements and GST.

The Respondents commenced an Appeal of the Award on September 12, 2025, and subsequently amended the Appeal multiple times. The central issue on the Appeal was whether the Arbitrator had exceeded her jurisdiction. The Applicant applied to strike the Appeal. The Court held that disputes concerning survivorship and the disposition of the farm property were within the Arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The Court also considered the appeal provisions of the Arbitration Act, RSA 2000, c A-43, noting that Section 46 imposes a strict 30-day period for commencing an appeal. The Arbitrator held that any of the Respondents’ amendments which refined or clarified existing grounds of appeal were permitted after that period, but amendments that introduced new grounds of appeal were out of time.