Atkinson v. McGregor et al., (1998) 227 A.R. 376 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 17, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 227 A.R. 376 (QB)

Atkinson v. McGregor et al. (1998), 227 A.R. 376 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. AU.040

Hollie Mary Atkinson (plaintiff) v. Rory A. McGregor and Michael L. Pollock, administrator ad litem of the Estate of Hazel K. Sherick, deceased (defendants)

(Action No. 9503 16579)

Indexed As: Atkinson v. McGregor et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

July 23, 1998.

Summary:

The defendants made an offer of judgment to the plaintiff at 6:57 a.m. on the first day of what was scheduled as a five day trial. The plaintiff did not accept the offer. The plaintiff recovered less than the offer. The plaintiff applied for relief from the applica­tion of rule 174(1)(b). Further, in her bill of costs for the period predating the offer of judgment, the plaintiff asked for costs relat­ing to QuickLaw searches, for service of the notice to produce, for photocopying and faxing at rates higher than those usually awarded by the Taxing Officer, and for costs for a mini-trial.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench re­fused to grant the plaintiff relief from the cost consequences of rule 174(1)(b). Further the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to charges for QuickLaw, nor was she entitled to additional costs for photo­copying and faxing. Also she was not entitled to costs for the mini-trial. The court allowed the plaintiff $25 for service of the notice to produce.

Practice - Topic 7119.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Mini trials - A plaintiff claimed costs for a mini-trial - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected this claim, holding that no costs are awarded for mini-trials.

Practice - Topic 7134

Costs - Party and party costs - Disburse­ments - Photocopies - A plaintiff claimed costs for photocopying and faxing at rates higher than those usually awarded by the Taxing Officer (i.e., the plaintiff claimed $1.00 per page instead of the $.25 usually allowed) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench accepted the Taxing Officer's stan­dard as a reasonable one and held that the plaintiff was limited to the lower rate - See paragraphs 2, 4 and 21.

Practice - Topic 7138

Costs - Party and party costs - Disburse­ments - Computer research - A plaintiff claimed costs relating to QuickLaw com­puter searches - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench denied the claim in this case but discussed generally claims for computer charges - See paragraphs 2, 4, 12 to 16.

Practice - Topic 7150.3

Costs - Party and party costs - Disburse­ments - Faxes - [See Practice - Topic 7134 ].

Practice - Topic 7150.7

Costs - Party and party costs - Disburse­ments - Delivery and service charges - A plaintiff claimed costs for service of a notice to produce (i.e., $25) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, held that the plaintiff was entitled to this item - The court rejected the de­fendants' argument that the tariff item was directed only at service of initiating docu­ments - See paragraphs 2, 20.

Practice - Topic 7243

Costs - Party and party costs - Offers to settle - Effect of failure to accept - The defendants made an offer of judgment to the plaintiff at 6:57 a.m. on the first day of what was scheduled as a five day trial - The plaintiff did not accept the offer - The plaintiff recovered less than the offer - The plaintiff applied for relief from the applica­tion of the cost consequences of rule 174(1)(b) - The plaintiff argued that there were two special reasons to take this case out of rule 174(1)(b), namely, the offer was made too late for her to be able to consider it in a timely way and hers was the only expert evidence called - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench refused to grant the plaintiff relief from the cost consequences of rule 174(1)(b) - See para­graphs 1, 3, and 12 to 16.

Cases Noticed:

Tetterington v. Wiens et al. (1995), 165 A.R. 6; 89 W.A.C. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Smode v. Deveaux et al., [1998] A.R. Uned. 041 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Jando v. Kung (1995), 164 A.R. 237 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Parsons v. Canada Safeway Ltd. (1995), 57 A.C.W.S.(3d) 718 (B.C. Master), refd to. [para. 5].

Gainers Inc. v. Pocklington Holdings Inc. et al. (1996), 182 A.R. 78 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Lalli v. Chawla (1997), 203 A.R. 27 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

Statutes Noticed:

Rules of Court (Alta.), rule 174(1)(b) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Brett Nash, for the plaintiff;

Gerald Smith, for the defendants.

This application was heard on July 17, 1998, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on July 23, 1998.