The Applicant applied for Costs against the Respondent following a successful Application to strike the Respondent’s Appeal under Rule 3.68. The Respondent cross-applied for Costs against the Applicant.

The Court first noted that since the Appeal arose pursuant to a compensation Order under the Surface Rights Act, RSA 2000, c S-24, Costs must be determined under the Rules. The Court held that Rule 10.29 provides that the successful party to an application is entitled to Costs against the unsuccessful party, payable forthwith, subject to the Court’s general discretion under Rule 10.31. As a general rule, a successful party cannot be denied Costs, much less be ordered to pay Costs unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Since the Respondent did not Appeal the Court’s Decision in the Application to strike the Appeal, the Court held that the Respondent could not now advance an argument as though he were successful on Appeal. Bast J. found that there was no reason to depart from the ordinary Rules governing Costs, and ordered Costs against the Respondent.