KOSTIC v SCOTT VENTURO RUDAKOFF LLP, 2026 ABKB 626

The Court considered several related Applications in an Action brought by self-represented plaintiff Liliana Kostic (“Kostic”) against Scott Venturo Rudakoff LLP (“SVR”) and various lawyers that worked or previously worked at SVR. The Action arose from SVR's involvement in Kostic’s defence under a prior Action.

The Applications before the Court included the Defendants' Security for Costs Application, two Applications filed by Kostic on September 14, 2021 (the “Cross-Application”) and January 31, 2025 (the “2025 PICA Application”) seeking, among other things, an interim or advanced Costs Award, and a Fiat request to file an Application to compel production of third-party records from AIG Insurance Company of Canada (“AIG”) (the “Production Application”).

Justice Marion first applied Rule 6.11 and rejected Kostic's argument that SVR could not rely on an Affidavit filed by a previous employee of SVR on behalf of all of the Defendants. The Court held that the evidence was properly before the Court for the purpose of the Application.

With respect to Security for Costs, the Court applied the two-step analysis under Rule 4.22, first considering the enumerated factors and then determining whether an Order would be just and reasonable. The Court found it unlikely that SVR would be able to enforce a future Costs Award against Kostic. In reaching that conclusion, the Court relied on Kostic's history of unpaid Costs, her failure to provide meaningful evidence of assets in Alberta, her admitted impecuniosity, and evidence that she lacked the present ability to satisfy a significant Costs Award.

Justice Marion further concluded that Kostic's claim against SVR appeared relatively weak. The Court noted that Kostic had provided very little evidence concerning her assets, finances, or ability to continue the Action in the face of a Security for Costs Award, beyond generalized statements regarding her income and debts. The Court found that, absent security, Kostic effectively had "no skin in the game," as a self-represented litigant.

Justice Marion rejected Kostic's various arguments against the Security for Costs Application, including her assertions that the Application was brought too late, that the Defendants had failed to produce records, that the matter raised issues of public importance, that insurance coverage eliminated any prejudice to the Defendants, and that alleged misconduct by the Defendants justified refusing relief.

Although SVR sought security in the range of approximately $150,000 to $245,000 based on Column 4 of Schedule C and a multiplier reflecting the complexity of the litigation, the Court declined to award the full amount requested or to include past costs. Instead, the Court imposed a staged security amount designed to balance the Defendants' interests against the risk of terminating the Action. Kostic was ordered to post $20,000 into Court within two months. If her Summary Judgment Application was struck or dismissed, she would be required to post an additional $30,000 within two months. The Court also granted leave for either party to return following discoveries to address whether further security should be required for expert evidence, Trial preparation, and Trial.

Both Kostic's Cross-Application and 2025 PICA Application sought advanced Costs. The Court held that Kostic failed to satisfy the test from British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71 for such extraordinary relief.

The Cross-Application was struck in its entirely. The Court further dismissed Kostic's Fiat request relating to her proposed 2025 PICA Application. The Court observed that aspects of the proposed relief had already been struck in earlier decisions and that Kostic had failed to revise the Application accordingly. The Court indicated that it was considering a penalty under Rule 10.49 in relation to the 2025 PICA Application.

Lastly the Court did not approve the filing of Kostic’s SVR Records Application. The Court held that Kostic’s proposed Affidavit failed to provide sufficient evidence of identified or identifiable records that likely exist, that are relevant and material, and that have not been disclosed or produced. She had not yet conducted a Questioning on the Affidavit of Records of SVR. The Court also noted that, as far as her Application related to seeking records from AIG, it was essentially a request for records from a non-party and Rule 5.13 was not to be used as a “fishing expedition”.