687725 BC Ltd. Respondent/Applicant - v. -, 2021 ABQB 743

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: 687725 BC Ltd v Rakov, 2021 ABQB 743 Date: 20210917 Docket: 1901 13139 Registry: Calgary Between: 687725 BC Ltd. Respondent/Applicant - and - Ivo Ivanov Rakov Appellant/Respondent _______________________________________________________ Costs Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice C.M. Jones _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] This is a costs decision in respect of my decision reported at 687725 BC Ltd v Rakov , 2021 ABQB 462 . Mr.

Rakov appealed a decision of Master Farrington dated November 8, 2019, directing registration of a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act , RSA 2000, c R-6 . I allowed the appeal. [ 2 ] 687725 BC Ltd. (687) does not dispute that Mr. Rakov, the successful party, is entitled to costs. 687 objects to Mr. Rakov’s inclusion in his draft Bill of Costs of an amount of $2,025.00 in respect of item 1(1) of

Schedule C to the Alberta Rules of Court ( Rules ). [ 3 ] Though he does not mention it anywhere in his draft Bill of Costs, Mr. Rakov appears to be computing his requested costs in accordance with Column 2 of

Schedule C. 687 does not challenge recourse to that Column. [ 4 ] Mr. Rakov’s draft Bill of Costs contains the following description in respect of item 1(1) of

Schedule C: Reply Affidavit and Materials re Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgment Act Application (REJA Application). [ 5 ] Without citing authority, 687 argues that Mr. Rakov should not be awarded costs in respect of item 1(1) because that item relates to a responding pleading. It argues that Mr. Rakov did not file a responding pleading. [ 6 ] Item 1(1) refers to commencement documents, affidavits, pleadings and related documents and amendments. Accordingly, it encompasses Mr. Rakov’s reply affidavit and related materials. This item is allowed.

[ 7 ] 687 disputes Mr. Rakov’s assertion that this matter was complex. Mr. Rakov is seeking costs in respect of his appeal before me in accordance with items 19 and 20 of Column 2 of

Schedule C. 687 argues that Mr. Rakov’s brief was only seven pages and his oral argument lasted only ten minutes. [ 8 ] I found the matter sufficiently complex to direct supplemental written submissions after I had heard oral argument and to write an eighty-two paragraph decision. Much of the complexity devolved from the need to understand 687’s complicated and comprehensive written and oral arguments, most of which I rejected. [ 9 ] I accept Mr. Rakov’s submissions in respect of items 19 and 20. [ 10 ] Lastly, 687 seeks a stay of my costs award pending the outcome of its appeal of my decision.

Alternatively, it seeks to have it pay the costs award into its counsel’s trust account pending final determination of its appeal.

It cites the decision of the Court of Appeal in Beaumont Energy Inc. v Amik Oilfield Equipment & Rentals Ltd ., 2017 ABCA 327 in support of its request. [ 11 ] I do not view that decision as authority for the proposition that, on the facts of this case, it would be appropriate to qualify the presumption that costs to a successful party are payable forthwith. 687 has not offered any argument in support of the application of a tripartite test in the context of an inferred inability on Mr. Rakov’s part to repay a costs award should 687 be successful on appeal. [ 12 ] Mr.

Rakov’s draft Bill of Costs, which accompanied his submissions, is approved in the total amount of $9,960.45. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 17 th day of September, 2021. C.M. Jones J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Quinn Kuefler for the Appellant/Respondent Richard Harrison for the Respondent/Applicant