Skolney v Nisha, 2017 ABQB 765

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Skolney v Nisha, 2017 ABQB 765 Date: 20171208 Docket: 4803 167762 Registry: Edmonton Between: Glenn Wayne Skolney Plaintiff - and - Nazreen Nisha Defendant _______________________________________________________ Ruling on Costs of the Honourable Mr. Justice J.T. McCarthy _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The Plaintiff has been successful with regard to the trial of an issue set out in the order of Justice D.R.G.

Thomas which states as follows: The determination of the validity and enforceability of a Cohabitation and Property Agreement signed by the parties on or about October 25, 2008. This shall include the Defendant’s allegation with re inspect to compliance with Sections 37 and 38 of the Matrimonial Property Act, as well as the Defendant’s allegation of duress, undue influence, or other contractual defects. [ 2 ] This Court made a declaratory Judgment that the agreement between the parties was valid and enforceable and complied

with Sections 37 and 38 of the Matrimonial Property Act. It further declared that it was entered into without duress undue influence orother contractual defects on the part of the Defendant. [3] It must be emphasized that costs are ordered to the Plaintiff only with regard to the trial of the defined issues and not theoverall Divorce and Matrimonial Property proceedings.

Both parties made written submissions with regards to costs. [4] In the case of Mitrovic v Mitrovic, 2007 ABQB 107, Justice Veit stated in part as follows: In light of the overall principles relating to costs, it follows that, where the claim or award is composed partly of a monetary amount andpartly of relief which does not involve a monetary aspect, the applicable Column of

Schedule C is determined according to the monetaryamount part of the claim or award rather than by the non-monetary aspect of the claim. [5] I agree with submissions by counsel for the Plaintiff that evidenced by the property schedules attached to the Agreement, thetotal matrimonial property to which potential claim apply, and which the Agreement governs, is in excess of $41 million. Therefore thevalue of the issues in dispute places costs in Column 5. [6] In this case enhanced costs should be ordered.

Here the Defendant attempted to deceive the court and defeat justice as inOlson v New Home Certification Program of Alberta (1986) (AB KB), 69 AR 356 (Alta. Q.B). This court finds Ms.Nisha’s claim was entirely without merit and she lied in her testimony concerning the alleged forgery. In this case enhanced costs in theamount of Column 5 with a multiplier of 2 (Column 5 times 2) is warranted and is so ordered. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 8th day of December, 2017. J.T. McCarthy J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Norman W. Picard, Q.C. Barr Picard for the Plaintiff Nazreen Nisha Defendant