Wang v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2021 ABQB 962

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wang v Alberta (Human Rights Commission), 2021 ABQB 962 Date: 20211206 Docket: 2001 12472 Registry: Calgary Between: Shaoli Wang Applicant - and - Alberta Human Rights Commission and Alberta Energy Regulator Respondents _______________________________________________________ Endorsement re Costs of the Honourable Mr. Justice J.T.

Eamon _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Mr Wang succeeded in setting aside a decision of Alberta Human Rights Commission (“AHRC”) to summarily dismiss Mr Wang’s human rights complaint against his former employer, Alberta Energy Regulator (“AER”) ( Wang v Alberta (Human Rights Commission) , 2021 ABQB 780 ).

Mr Wang seeks costs. [ 2 ] I stated in my previous reasons there was no basis to entertain a claim for costs against AHRC ( Wang at para 48 ). [ 3 ] It is well established that the tribunal involved in judicial review of its decision does not receive or pay costs unless it misconducted itself or there are other extraordinary circumstances justifying an award of costs ( Sihota v Edmonton (City) , 2013 ABCA 125 at paras 4-5 ).

For a recent discussion of the principle, see University of Calgary v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) , 2021 ABQB 795 at paras 74-77 . [ 4 ] There were no circumstances in this case that could justify a costs award against AHRC. The decision maker erred in its reasoning, but that alone is not enough to attract costs. AHRC did not misconduct itself by appearing on the judicial review. AHRC’s counsel provided balanced, helpful submissions well within the limitations on submissions by administrative tribunals in judicial review

proceedings, and did not advocate for a particular outcome or engage in the merits of the litigation. [ 5 ] AER unsuccessfully defended AHRC’s decision summarily dismissing Mr Wang’s complaint against AER. The Court may award costs against AER. [ 6 ] The Court may award costs to a self-represented litigant (Alberta Rules of Court, R 10.31(5)) “if doing so would serve at least one of the policy reasons for which costs awards are made, apart from indemnification” ( LaTrace v Warkentin Building Movers Virden Inc , 2021 ABCA 377 at paras 3-5 , and authorities cited therein).

Other policy reasons, apart from indemnification, are “encouraging settlement, preventing frivolous, vexatious or harassing litigation, and encouraging economy and efficiency during litigation” ( ibid at para 5). [ 7 ] Even if AER took no position in the judicial review, Mr Wang would have been required to brief and argue his case. Mr Wang’s submissions went beyond those necessary for a judicial review of a complaint dismissal ( Wang at paras 3-4 ).

I think it was reasonable for AER to appear given the breadth of the allegations in Mr Wang’s materials on the judicial review. [ 8 ] In these circumstances, awarding costs to Mr Wang would not serve the policy objectives of costs. [ 9 ] Mr Wang’s application for costs is dismissed. Heard by written submissions, October 27, 2021 (Mr Wang), November 9, 2021 (ARHC), and November 25, 2021 (AER). Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 6 th day of December, 2021. J.T. Eamon J.C.Q.B.A.

Appearances: Shaoli Wang, self-represented for the Applicant Candice Ross for the AER Melissa Luhtanen for the Chief Commissioner, Alberta Human Rights Commission (limited submissions)