This was a costs decision following the Court’s dismissal of a tenant’s request for an Injunction for the return of goods distrained by the landlord.

The Court concluded that costs should be awarded in the amount proposed by counsel for the unsuccessful tenant. In doing so, the Court listed several points which had influenced its decision: (1) that it remained too early to gauge the likelihood of the tenant’s ultimate success based on as-yet undetermined facts; (2) that there was an absence of litigation misconduct; (3) that the urgency with which the Injunction Application was brought was reasonable; (4) that Column 1 costs are typically, or at least often, awarded in the Injunction context; (5) that Schedule C Costs are still often regarded as a benchmark for costs awards; (6) that the absence of a written lease precludes analogy to scenarios involving written leases in which solicitor-client costs are often provided; and (7) that the tenant’s request for consideration of additional issues generated minimal additional work for the landlord.

In an Appendix to the Decision, the Court summarized several cases in which the above principles were confirmed, including those expressly considering Rules 10.29, 10.30 and 10.33. The Court specifically noted its reliance on the decision of Mah J. in Orbis Engineering Field Services v Taifa Engineering Ltd, 2019 ABQB 592 in which costs of an urgent injunction were ordered payable forthwith, absent enhancement to account for inflation or to achieve partial indemnity.