Liu v Calgary Chinatown Development Foundation, 2017 ABQB 719

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Liu v Calgary Chinatown Development Foundation, 2017 ABQB 719 Date: 20171123 Docket: 1401 13225 Registry: Calgary Between: Kwan Ying Liu, Thoai Phong Lam, Yin Ping Tam Yuk Chun Chung, Tak Hing Tang, Pik Han Law Appellants - and - Calgary Chinatown Development Foundation Respondent _______________________________________________________ Ruling on Costs of the Honourable Mr. Justice A.D. Macleod _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On March 3, 2017 I gave judgment in Liu v Calgary Chinatown Development Foundation , 2017 ABQB 149 .

The decision was in favor of the Respondent, Calgary Chinatown Development Foundation (“CCDF”) and I invited counsel to speak to the issue of costs. I received a bench brief which was filed by the Respondent on May 4, 2017 and I received a brief from Mr. Khan dated August 8, 2017. [ 2 ] There are two principles at play here. The CCDF takes issue with the allegations against CCDF and its representative Mr. Jack Yee.

There was an allegation of breach of trust and certain allegations of acts taken in self-interest. [ 3 ] Certainly, Master Laycock considered them to be allegations of fraud and this was a reason why he awarded elevated costs of $2500 per applicant. [ 4 ] The other principle at stake is access to justice by the tenants. This was a situation where the tenants in subsidized housing

felt strongly that they had been over charged rent by the landlord and their position was that the maximum rent should have been thirty percent of their income. The matter was initially referred to the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Services but was referred by them to this Court. It is my view that costs should not be set at a level so as to create a chilling effect on those groups who seek a judicial ruling. [ 5 ] I acknowledge the principle relied upon by Master Laycock and its validity and while I would not have exercised my discretion in quite the same way, I am not prepared to say that he erred.

I would therefore not disturb his award of costs. [ 6 ] On the other hand, I do not find the allegations offensive. They are the sort of allegations you would expect in an action brought by a group of tenants in the position of the Bowside residents. [ 7 ] However, I think the successful litigant is entitled to costs and I would award the respondent CCDF costs of the appeal before me under the appropriate column of

Schedule C. If the parties cannot agree they can refer the matter to the taxing officer. Heard on the 15 th day of December, 2016 and 20 th day of January, 2017. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 23 rd day of November, 2017. A.D. Macleod J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: David Khan for the Appellants Jeffrey L. Smith, Q. C. for the Respondent