O’REILLY v O’REILLY

This was a Costs decision arising from O’Reilly v O’Reilly, 2025 ABKB 103.  Because all the issues were intertwined, Justice Marion evaluated “substantial success” holistically rather than issue-by-issue. The central dispute concerned entitlement and priority to a deceased’s property. Brenda Gail O’Reilly achieved priority to $207,256.79 of the proceeds and was appointed sole residuary beneficiary of the Estate, but she did not succeed on all claims, including her family-property application and her attempt to secure priority over creditors.

Justice Marion considered the entirety of the circumstances and the factors mandated by the Rules and noted the following, among other things:

•  The hearing was important, financially, to all parties, but not in a way that materially separated it from most litigation; however, there were also legal issues relating the availability of a family property order, and priority between claimants and writ-holders that had potentially broad implications.
• The matter was reasonably complex, although much of the complexity was caused by the conduct of the deceased, not the parties. Counsel and parties reasonably addressed the intertwined issues, and were cooperative and reasonable in their approach to the matters at issue.
• Schedule C, Column 3 was the appropriate column, given the amounts that were de facto in dispute.
• Enhanced costs were not warranted based on party conduct, with the possible exception being one of the judgment creditor’s (Jessica Lynn Hollingshead) failure to comply with an Attachment Order. Significant time and expense likely could have been avoided had she complied with the Attachment Order in the first instance.
• There were no settlement offers relevant to the determination of Costs.

Based on these factors, Justice Marion found that a lump sum cost award in favour of Ms. O’Reilly against Hollingshead in the amount of $15,000 (inclusive of disbursements and other costs) plus GST was fair and appropriate.