REMINGTON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v ENMAX POWER CORPORATION

This decision arose from cross-appeals to the Court of King’s Bench from a compensation determination of the Land and Property Rights Tribunal under the Surface Rights Act, RSA 2000 c S-24 (the “SRA”).

The only issue before the Court was costs. Unlike typical civil proceedings, the Court held that costs were governed not by the Rules, but by the specific statutory scheme in Section 26 of the SRA, which displaces the ordinary discretionary, party-and-party costs framework. Under Section 26(9)(a), where the operator appeals, costs are payable by the operator on a solicitor-and-client basis, regardless of the result (absent special circumstances). Under Section 26(9)(b)(i), where the landowner is successful on its appeal, costs are likewise payable on that basis.

Because both provisions were engaged, the Court was required to award the landowner its solicitor-and-client costs, and the Rules-based analysis (e.g., substantial success or proportionality) did not apply. Justice Simard noted, however, that the Rules may still inform the process for quantifying costs. The Court declined to refer the matter to an Assessment Officer given the complexity of the case and instead retained carriage for determining quantum.