In this matter, the Applicant sought permission to appeal an Order of the Court of King’s Bench dismissing an Appeal from an Assessment Officer’s decision, which was heard pursuant to Rule 10.44. The Assessment Officer quantified the full indemnity costs payable for a previous Application in the amount of $19,394.81.

The Applicant requested permission to Appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal pursuant to Rule 14.5(1)(i). The Court departed from the four-part test for permission to Appeal, found in the former Rule 14.5(1)(e), to better respect the exceptional nature of second Appeals and the objectives of the simplified, timely, and economical process for assessments of costs awards contemplated by Part 10 of the Rules.

Instead, the Court clarified that, under Rule 14.5(1)(i), where the Appeal sought is from an Appeal decision of an Assessment Officer’s decision, the Court is required to consider whether: a) there is a question of general or public importance that warrants another Appeal; b) there is a reasonable chance of success on Appeal; and c) the delay will not unduly hinder the progress of a related proceeding or cause undue prejudice to the simplified, timely and economical process contemplated for the Assessment of costs awards.

Applying the test to the facts of the matter, the Court concluded that the Applicant failed to demonstrate a question of general or public importance, a reasonable chance of success, or that another Appeal would not unduly prejudice the streamlined process for assessing costs.

Permission to Appeal was denied.

In respect of Costs, the Court awarded $5,500 as a lump sum Costs Award to the Respondent, pursuant to Rule 14.88(1), finding the Applicant's Application to be entirely without merit and part of a pattern of unreasonable litigation conduct that unnecessarily complicated a minor dispute. The Applicant’s self-represented status did not excuse his misuse of Court resources, and the Court emphasized that all litigants must act responsibly and cost-effectively, given that the foundational principles found in Rules 1.1(2) and 1.2 apply whether a litigant is self-represented or represented by a lawyer. For these reasons, the scale of the Costs for the Appeal remained the same as the scale that applied to the Order appealed from, pursuant to Rule 14.88(3).