Dyck v Dyck, 2023 ABKB 463

Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Dyck v Dyck, 2023 ABKB 463 Date: 20230809 Docket: 4803 196479 Registry: Edmonton Between: Sabine Maria Dyck Plaintiff/Applicant - and - Kenneth John Dyck Defendant/Respondent _______________________________________________________ Endorsement as to Costs of the Honourable Justice Douglas R. Mah _______________________________________________________ [ 1 ] This Costs Decision is in consequence of my Decision reported at 2023 ABKB 405 wherein I ruled on Ms. Dyck’s Application to compel Mr. Dyck to provide further and better financial disclosure.

In that Decision, I did the following: • gave 17 directions to Mr. Dyck to respond to certain written interrogatories or comply with certain undertakings; • ruled that no further action was required on two of the requested items; • directed that Mr. Dyck did not have to comply with one refused undertaking; • found that the one question relating to Mr. Dyck’s income tax returns for 2019-2022 could not be resolved until the question of

whether spousal support had been paid during that period was first determined, by the Court if necessary; and • dismissed Ms. Dyck’s Contempt Application against Mr. Dyck. [ 2 ] Counsel for Ms. Dyck submits that Item 7(1) of

Schedule C presumptively applies. In addition, he seeks the costs of the Family Docket Court appearance, citing Glowacki v Darmanin , 2021 ABQB 882 . Finally, there is a request for consideration for an extra amount for the preparation of a document, on which I relied, that summarized what was missing from the responses to date, which counsel suggests is in the nature of a brief under Item 8(1). [ 3 ] Mr. Dyck’s counsel says that the parties should bear their own costs, or that costs be limited to $300 as Ms. Dyck was only partially successful.

As for the Family Docket Court appearance, she says that the parties had already agreed in writing to an extension for compliance by Mr. Dyck before that appearance. Overall, Mr. Dyck’s counsel says that insufficient time was given to Mr. Dyck to comply before the June 28, 2023 Chambers Application before me. [ 4 ] The discretion to award costs must be exercised judicially and in line with the factors stated in Rule 10.33: Weatherford Canada Partnership v. Artemis Kautschuk und Kunstoff-Technik GmbH , 2019 ABCA 92 at para 11 . Since Ms.

Dyck was substantially successful, she is entitled to her costs of the application. While I did find that Mr. Dyck exhibited a degree of obfuscation in replying to the interrogatories and undertakings, I also take into account the somewhat difficult circumstances and timeline in which he was asked to respond. [ 5 ] Further, while Family Docket Court is a necessary step to getting to court (as one could infer from the Glowacki case), from what I can tell the attendance in this case was for the purpose of putting certain consent matters on the record.

Finally, the Application before me was a regular morning chambers application. It was not a special application. I appreciate the utility of the document that Ms. Dyck’s counsel prepared and provided to me, but I consider it to be preparation for a regular chambers application. [ 6 ] In the result, I award Ms. Dyck costs reflecting Item 7(1) under Column 1 of

Schedule C or $675, payable forthwith. Heard by way of written submissions on the 4 th day and 8 th day of August, 2023. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 9 th day of August, 2023. Douglas R. Mah J.C.K.B.A. Appearances: James Samaroden Bruyer & McKay LLP for the Plaintiff/Applicant Monica Wang Verhaeghe Law for the Defendant/Respondent