Wang and Li v Alberta Health Services, 2023 ABKB 189

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Wang and Li v Alberta Health Services, 2023 ABKB 189 Date: 20230331 Docket: 1401 10235 Registry: Calgary Between: Xiaoli Lily Wang and Daiming Robert Li Applicants - and - Alberta Health Services Respondent _______________________________________________________ Ruling on Costs of the Honourable Justice Eleanor J.

Funk _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This matter came before me as an application in morning Chambers in which the Applicants sought an Order allowing them to object to the distribution of funds; a stay of enforcement of a 2019 Costs Award; and that a half day Special Chambers hearing be set for a Bill of Costs Appeal that had been scheduled, and then cancelled, in 2019. [ 2 ] On February 28, 2023, I released my corrected reasons in which I dismissed the application, Wang and Li v Alberta Health Services , 2023 ABKB 83 . [ 3 ] The issue of costs in now before me.

[ 4 ] Alberta Health Services (AHS) seeks costs pursuant to

Schedule C of the Rules of Court . Because the dispute involves a costs award in excess of $300,000, AHS seeks Column 3 costs in the amount of $1,350. The Applicants chose not to make submissions on costs. Law and Analysis [ 5 ] As the successful party in the application, AHS is presumptively entitled to costs, paid by the Applicants. [ 6 ] In McAllister v Calgary (City) , 2021 ABCA 25 , the Court of Appeal confirmed the default rule that the successful party is entitled to costs against the unsuccessful party, and that the Court has considerable discretion in deciding to award costs. The Court’s discretion must be exercised judicially. Reference to

Schedule C is only one of many options available to judges in deciding “reasonable and proper costs”: McAllister , at paras 29-30 . [ 7 ] When I consider AHS’ request for costs in the amount of $1,350, along with the factors listed in Rules 10.31 and 10.33, I note that AHS was wholly successful in having the application dismissed; that the underlying dispute is in relation to a Costs Award in excess of $300,000; and, that the matter before me involved a contested application. [ 8 ] In light of these factors, I find the request for costs in the amount of $1,350 is both reasonable and proper in the circumstances.

Conclusion [ 9 ] For the reasons given, I award costs in favour of AHS in the amount of $1,350. [ 10 ] The Applicants are self-represented litigants. The Supreme Court of Canada in Pintea and Johns , 2017 SCC 23 , set instructions to judges concerning their interactions with self represented litigants.

Mindful of that instruction from the Supreme Court, should the Applicants choose to pursue any disagreement with my Decisions, their remedy is an appeal to the Alberta Court of Appeal. [ 11 ] Counsel for AHS shall prepare the Order giving effect to this Decision, and the previous Decision in which I dismissed the Applicants’ application. Heard on the 30 th day of January, 2023. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 31 st day of March, 2023. Eleanor J. Funk J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Xiaoli Wang and Daiming Li Self represented for the Applicants Stephen Torscher Miller Thomson for the Respondent