TERRIGNO v ROCKY VIEW COUNTY, 2026 ABKB 553

The Applicant filed an Application which was scheduled for a hearing that ultimately proved unnecessary because the parties resolved the issue. A consent Order was granted by the Court. Justice Malik suggested that each party be responsible for its own costs. The Respondent agreed, but the Applicant maintained his claim for costs.

The Applicant sought costs on the basis that the Respondent’s conduct allegedly forced him to commence the Application and incur unnecessary expenses. The Respondent argued that an award of costs was unreasonable because the dispute could have been resolved informally without the Application, it responded promptly to the Applicant’s inquiries, and the Applicant’s continued pursuit of costs was unreasonable.

The Court declined to award costs, finding that the dispute could have been resolved informally, the Respondent acted promptly, and the Applicant suffered no prejudice. Justice Malik opined that awarding costs would be inconsistent with the foundational objectives of Rule 1.2, mainly proportionality, cost-effectiveness, and the efficient resolution of disputes. The matter was resolved by consent with minimal Court involvement whereas an award of costs would discourage settlement and incentivize unnecessary litigation over costs alone.