Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local Council #, 2023 ABKB 530

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local Council #1994 of Grande Cache v Métis Nation of Alberta Association, 2023 ABKB 530 Date: 20230920 Docket: 2203 18589 Registry: Edmonton Between: Métis Nation of Alberta Association Local Council #1994 of Grande Cache Plaintiff/Respondent - and - Métis Nation of Alberta Association, Audrey Poitras, Daniel Cardinal, James A. Cardinal, Jason Ekeberg, Duane Zaraska, Andrea Sandmaier, Lawrence R.

Gervais, Judy Gentes, Elmer Guillon, Hilda Lambert, Carol Ridsdale, Barry Dibb and Gary Gagnon Defendants/Applicants _______________________________________________________ Costs Endorsement of the Honourable Justice M. J. Lema _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction

[ 1 ] This is my ruling on costs following the decision reported at 2023 ABKB 322 . [ 2 ] The issues include the appropriate column of

Schedule C, whether costs of earlier applications are properly addressed here, whether

Schedule C items 7(1) and 8(1) both apply to a single application, and whether costs of computer legal research are a claimable disbursement. [ 3 ] I largely find for the plaintiff Local Council, for the reasons outlined below. II. Analysis [ 4 ] Here are the issues and associated analysis: 1. entitlement to costs: We are downstream of any debate about entitlement costs. Per para 138 of the decision in 2023 ABKB 322 , I found that the MNAA “is entitled to costs of the strike/stay application”; 2. scale of costs : The MNAA did not seek costs on a different scale than

Schedule C; the Local Council did not propose costs on any (potentially) lower scale. Accordingly, the MNAA’s costs shall be per that Schedule; 3. appropriate column : given the Local’s pursuit, via its statement of claim, of $500,000, the appropriate column, even for this interlocutory application, is Column 3: see R B New Co Ltd v 1331440 Alberta Ltd , 2013 ABQB 659 (Veit J.) at paras 8-12 ; Annett v Enterprise Rent-A-Car Canada Ltd , 2020 ABQB 74 (Renke J.) at paras 12-16 ; and Beaudin v Forget , 2020 ABQB 770 (my decision) at paras 4-8 ; and 4. particular cost items addressed in para 4 of Ms. O’Kelly’s letter : I agree with Ms. O’Kelly on her points (

a) through (f).

In a nutshell, I do not see “commencement document” costs as claimable on an interlocutory application; items 7(1) and 8(1) indeed cover different scenarios i.e. both do not apply to the single application here; I do not see the trial readiness / case management item (9(1)) as applying to interlocutory applications; the adjournment applications were the occasions to speak to costs of those applications (or, alternatively, if costs were already (implicitly) addressed, they are already set); same rationale for disallowing agent fees for those applications; and electronic research costs (and I make no finding of exorbitance here) are not currently claimable under Alberta case law: see Warshawski v Summer Village of Argentia Beach , 1990 ABCA 136 (paras 3-5 ); Murphy Oil Canada Ltd v Predator Corporation Ltd , 2005 ABQB 134 (MacMahon J.) at para 36 ; Clancy v Gough , 2011 ABQB 778 (Bensler J.) at paras 50-53 ; and Aram Systems Ltd v NovAtel Inc , 2010 ABQB 152 (Macleod J.).

III. Conclusion [ 5 ] The net result is that the MNAA is entitled to the column 3 amount for item 8(1) (i.e. $2,025) and the acknowledged-by-the- Local filing fee of $138, plus whatever GST is properly associated with either or both items. Heard via written submissions received June 16 and 30, 2023. Released in letter form on September 19, 2023. Dated at Edmonton, Alberta this 20 th day of September, 2023. M. J. Lema J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: Jason Madden & Alexander DeParde Pape Salter Teillet LLP For the Applicants (Defendants) Orlagh O’Kelly Roberts O’Kelly Law

For the Respondent (Plaintiff)