JS v LS, 2023 ABKB 417

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: JS v LS, 2023 ABKB 417 Date: 20230712 Docket: 4803 175741 Registry: Edmonton Between: JS Plaintiff/Applicant Cross-Respondent - and - LS Defendant/Respondent Cross-Applicant ______________________________________________________ Costs Decision of the Honourable Justice G.S. Dunlop _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] On May 31, 2023 I issued my decision regarding the parties’ parenting application and cross-application. I dismissed the father’s application and granted the mother’s cross-application to vary the existing parenting order.

I invited submissions on costs in writing which I received on June 19, 2023 from counsel for LS, the mother, and on June 23, 2023 from AS, the father, who is self- represented. Counsel for the child made no submissions regarding costs. The mother seeks costs. It is not clear from the father’s submission what his position is on costs. In particular, the father does not say in his submission whether he opposes paying costs to the mother and, while he notes that he paid 100% of the cost of the PN7 report which was before me, he does submit that the mother should make any contribution to that.

Consequently, I make no order regarding the cost of the PN7 report.

[ 2 ] I agree with the mother’s submission that she was the substantially successful party and that pursuant to r 10.29 she is entitled to costs, subject to my discretion as set out in r 10.31. The mother seeks costs under column 1 of

schedule C and I agree that is the appropriate column because no monetary relief was sought or awarded. [ 3 ] LS submits that, in addition to costs of the applications and hearing before me, she should also receive costs for a written submission to Kendall, J in February 2022 to proceed to family docket court, a family chambers application before Loparco, J in April 2022 and a case conference before Fraser, J in May 2022 which resulted in several orders drafted by LS’s counsel. LS submits that those hearings were necessary steps to get to the hearing before me.

However, there is nothing before me to indicate that any of those other Justices reserved costs of the proceedings before them to me as the Justice ultimately hearing the parenting application and cross- application. Furthermore, it is not clear which party, if any, was substantially successful in each of those previous hearings, nor the extent to which the relief obtained was opposed.

Given those circumstances, I decline to award costs for the previous submission, application, case conference and resulting orders. [ 4 ] LS further submits that she should receive enhanced costs because of her settlement offers made in April and May 2023. JS submits that there was only one settlement offer, in April 2023, which he understood to be a proposal for a parenting arrangement until the hearing before me rather than a resolution of the applications before me.

Given the conflicting submissions regarding the settlement proposals, I decline to award enhanced costs based on settlement proposals not being accepted. [ 5 ] LS further submits that an application by JS to receive half of the child’s school papers resulted in a family docket endorsement in November 2021 prohibiting the parties from bringing further applications without leave. In LS’s submission this unnecessarily lengthened or delayed the action which is relevant to costs pursuant to r 10.33(2)(a).

It is not clear to me that JS’s application for the school papers was the sole reason for the November 2021 endorsement, nor that any substantial delay resulted. Consequently, I am not prepared to increase costs on that basis. [ 6 ] LS includes an amount for review of opposing party documents in her proposed bill of costs (item 3(2) of

schedule C), but she does not address this in her written submission. That item is for disclosure under

Part 5 of the rules and is limited to once per action. This action started in 2016 with a Statement of Claim for Divorce and a Divorce Judgment and Corollary Relief Order was granted on December 5, 2017 with both parties consenting to all matters of corollary relief. In the absence of evidence or submissions that there was an unusual amount of document review required for the applications resulting in my May 31, 2023 decision, I find that any required document review is included in item 8(1) of

schedule C. [ 7 ] For those reasons, I order JS to pay LS costs as follows: fees item 8(1) $1,350.00 disbursements filing fee for special chambers application $75.00 other charges photocopies and printing $68.75 gst on fees and other charges $70.94 total costs awarded $1,564.69 Heard by written submissions received June 19 th and 23 rd , 2023 Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 12 th day of July, 2023 . G.S. Dunlop J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: JS Self-Represented Litigant

Plaintiff/Applicant Cross-Respondent Simone Conrad Shim Law for the Defendant/Respondent Cross-Applicant Jeffrey T. Keller Family Law Office for the Child, AS