Emmons v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2023 ABKB 88

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Emmons v Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board), 2023 ABKB 88 Date: 20230217 Docket: 2102 00072 Registry: Drumheller Between: John Emmons Plaintiff/Respondent - and - Alberta (Workers’ Compensation Board) Defendant/Applicant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision of the Honourable Justice C.M. Jones _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] The Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB”) brought an application against Mr.

Emmons in an attempt to bring an end to a litigation odyssey that has spanned a lengthy period of time. My decision, and the facts underlying the origins and progression of this dispute, are reported at Emmons v Alberta (Workers' Compensation Board) , 2023 ABKB 27 . [ 2 ] The parties have been unable to agree on costs and provided me with written submissions. II. Background [ 3 ] The facts, in brief, are these. Mr. Emmons suffered a workplace injury on January 14, 2000 (the “Accident”). He filed an injury claim with the WCB (the “Claim”).

The Claim was approved in respect of a right shoulder injury in 2000. [ 4 ] In 2006, Mr. Emmons advised the WCB that he was having cognitive issues, which he believed might have been caused by the Accident. A review of his claim, which proceeded in accordance with procedures proscribed the Workers’ Compensation Act , RSA 2000, c W-15 (the “ WCA ”), the Workers’ Compensation Regulation , AR 325/2002 (the “ Regulation ”) and WCB policy, lead to a denial of Mr. Emmons’ claim for compensation based on an alleged brain injury arising from the Accident.

[ 5 ] Instead of following various review and appeal procedures prescribed by the WCA , Mr. Emmons commenced litigation. He prosecuted three actions against the WCB and others. One was struck for procedural reasons and two were dismissed on the merits. [ 6 ] Undeterred, Mr. Emmons commenced a fourth action against the WCB. The WCB applied for various forms of relief. First, it asked the Court to strike the fourth action pursuant to Rule 3.68 alleging, inter alia , that it constituted an abuse of process. Alternatively, the WCB sought

summary dismissal of the fourth action pursuant to Rule 7.3 on the grounds that it is barred by a limitation period. In addition, the WCB sought a vexatious litigation order barring Mr. Emmons from instituting further proceedings on behalf of himself or any other person without permission of the Court, pursuant to

section 23.1 of the Judicature Act , RSA 2000, c J-2 . [ 7 ] I granted the WCB the relief it sought, with the exception of the vexatious litigation order. That said, I warned Mr. Emmons in my decision that he was treading very close to the line in that regard and that further attempts to pursue this matter could well produce a different result. III. The Parties’ Positions [ 8 ] The WCB cites Rules 10.29, 10.30, 10.31 and 10.33 relating to an award of costs. It argues that it is entitled to party-party costs under Column 4 of

Schedule C of Division 2 of the Rules . I agree that Column 4 is the applicable column, given that Mr. Emmons claimed $500,000 in general damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. [ 9 ] The WCB notes its success in obtaining the relief sought, apart from the vexatious litigation order. In total, it seeks $14,632.66 broken down as follows in its Bill of Costs: (

a) Fees of $12,475.00 computed under Column 4 in respect of the various line items in

Schedule C; (

b) Disbursements of $1,533.91 and (

c) GST of $623.75. [ 10 ] Mr. Emmons, who was self-represented in these proceedings, argues that each party should bear its own costs. He asserts that the WCB has not sought costs against him in respect of his prior unsuccessful actions in recognition of his physical and mental state and his impecuniosity. [ 11 ] In his costs submissions, Mr. Emmons continues to assert that he suffered a brain injury that the WCB refuses to recognize. He argues that the WCB is supposed to be fair, balanced and transparent in their actions, as well as responsive and trusted.

He also asserts that the WCB should be open and honest in its communications. Essentially, Mr. Emmons continues to assert that the WCB has failed in these responsibilities and is not blameless.

On this basis, he argues that any award of costs in favour of the WCB should be attenuated. [ 12 ] He also argues that, because the WCB did not obtain the vexatious litigation order it sought, the parties enjoyed mixed success, which should reduce any costs award against him. [ 13 ] He does not believe he should be responsible for costs of $1,685.00 sought by the WCB in connection with the preparation of its costs submissions. He also objects to the WCB’s request for reimbursement of its photocopy charges, noting the Court’s costs manual suggests a charge of 15 cents per page. IV.

Decision [ 14 ] I award costs to the WCB as requested in its Bill of Costs. The request is reasonable, in accordance with both the Rules and Court procedure and reflects the WCB’s success in bringing this matter to a conclusion, in spite of Mr. Emmons’ refusal to follow prescribed procedures. Dated at the Town of Drumheller, Alberta this 17 th day of February, 2023. C.M. Jones J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: John Emmons for the Plaintiff/Respondent

Brian J. Murnaghan for the Defendant/Applicant