Boll v Woodlands County, 2022 ABKB 717

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Boll v Woodlands County, 2022 ABKB 717 Date: 20221027 Docket: 1603 22391 Registry: Edmonton Between: Jonas Boll & Pipistrel Aircraft Canada Inc. Applicants (Respondents) - and - Woodlands County, Woodlands County Municipal Planning Commission, and Woodlands County Subdivision and Development Appeal Board Respondents (Applicants) _______________________________________________________ Endorsement Concerning Costs of the Honourable Justice S.N.

Mandziuk _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] In Boll v Woodlands County , 2021 ABQB 406 (Dismissal Decision) I summarily dismissed Jonas Boll’s and Pipistrel Aircraft Canada Inc.’s application for judicial review against Woodlands County Municipal Planning Commission (the MPC) and Woodlands County Subdivision and Development Appeal Board (the SDAB).

[ 2 ] The MPC and the SDAB are no longer involved in this action. Woodlands County remains a party. [ 3 ] Subsequently, I issued a Ruling on Costs ( Boll v Woodlands County , 2021 ABQB 1002 ) in relation to the Dismissal Decision. I awarded costs to MPC and SDAB calculated at 65% of their respective solicitor-client costs. [ 4 ] The parties appeared before the Assessment Officer, who referred the matter back to the Court for directions. There are two questions: 1. Did this Court intend for Woodlands County to be one of the costs claimants? 2.

Are the costs of the Second File considered costs of Woodlands County, MPC, or both? (The Bill of Costs references two files – one names Woodlands County as a client and the other – the Second File - names Woodlands County’s insurer, with Woodlands County as the insured). [ 5 ] With respect to the first question, I intended the MPC and SDAB to be the costs claimants.

While Woodlands County and the MPC have the same legal counsel and may have aligned interests, the MPC and the SDAB were the applicants and the successful parties. [ 6 ] I recognize that there may be overlap and even commonality between the legal work performed for the MPC and Woodlands County. The Dismissal Decision may have a salutary effect on Woodlands County. However, only the work undertaken for MPC is considered costs of MPC. [ 7 ] The Court cannot answer Question Two. This seems to relate to an internal billing matter and the administrative structure of the law firm which opened the Second File.

How counsel chooses to name files, record work on files, and how work is described, are internal file management matters and concern the billing arrangement between the solicitor and client. [ 8 ] Again, legal work that was undertaken for MPC is considered costs of MPC.

If an insurer is paying for part of the work that is undertaken for MPC, that does not change the fact that it is recoverable. [ 9 ] With this direction, the matter is remitted to the Assessment Officer, who will determine the reasonable and proper costs payable to the MPC and SDAB resulting from the Dismissal Decision. [ 10 ] There shall be no costs payable with respect to this application. Heard on the 27 th day of September, 2022. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 27 th day of October, 2022. S.N. Mandziuk J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Peter J Major, K.C. for Jonas Boll and Pipistrel Aircraft Canada Inc.

Jeneane S. Grundberg, K.C. for the Woodlands County Municipal Planning Commission and Woodlands County