Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Bank of Montreal v. Cochrane, 2011 ABQB 432 Date: 20110705 Docket: 0901 07347 Registry: Calgary Between: Bank of Montreal Plaintiff - and - Kenneth Robert Cochrane et al Defendants _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Madam Justice C.A. Kent _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The defendant lawyers in this action unsuccessfully applied to strike out some of the claims on the basis of res judicata and issue estoppel. BMO now seeks costs, applying a multiplier of three to the basic

Schedule C amount. [ 2 ] BMO argues that applying a multiplier is in accordance with other decisions in the court where the action is complex. These cases have also recognized that

Schedule C is 13 years old and therefore not a fitting guideline for complex litigation. [ 3 ] The defendant lawyers argue that this is not complex litigations. It is massive but only because BMO joined together many claims that are reasonably straightforward. They say that the application was discrete. As well, they say that the cases cited by BMO, for

the most part, were decisions following lengthy trials. Finally, they say that

Schedule C is not 13 years old because it became part of the new Rules as of November 1, 2010. [ 4 ] This action is not complex. It is large because of the number of defendants. However the applications I have heard so far have been discrete as to issues and parties. That includes this application. [ 5 ] A multiplier of 3 is not warranted, but since this application was lengthier than the usual afternoon Special, I will order a multiplier of 2. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 5 th day of July, 2011. C.A. Kent J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Robert W. Armstrong, Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP for the Plaintiff Munaf Mohamed, Bennett Jones LLP for the Defendants