MURRAY v WINDSOR BRUNELLO LTD, 2026 ABCA 275

The Plaintiffs appealed the Trial Judge’s decision dismissing their Application for a Sanderson Order or a Bullock Order (the “Decision”).

A Sanderson Order requires an unsuccessful Defendant to pay the costs of a successful Defendant. By contrast, under a Bullock Order, the Plaintiff pays the successful Defendant’s costs and is then entitled to recover those costs from the unsuccessful Defendant.

In the Decision, the Trial Judge applied the tri-partite test set forth by the Court of Appeal of Alberta in Abt Estate v Ryan, 2020 ABCA 133: (1) whether it was reasonable for the Plaintiff to join the successful Defendants; (2) whether there was good reason to deprive the successful Defendants of their costs; and (3) whether the unsuccessful Defendants were wholly responsible for the Action. On Appeal, the Plaintiffs argued that the Trial Judge erred in interpreting and applying the second and third branches of the test.

The Court of Appeal did not find any error in the Trial Judge’s approach. The Panel held that the Trial Judge correctly concluded that a Sanderson Order would be unjust under the second branch of the test because the unsuccessful Defendant’s liability arose solely in contract, while the Plaintiffs’ negligence claims against all the Defendants, including the unsuccessful Defendant, had been dismissed. The Court of Appeal further held that, having determined that neither a Sanderson nor a Bullock Order was appropriate, the Trial Judge was not required to consider the third branch of the test.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appeal.