Cogent Group Inc. v. EnCana Leasehold Limited Partnership, 2014 ABQB 593

• Judge: Jones, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 29, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABQB 593;(2014), 597 A.R. 178 (QB)

Cogent Group Inc. v. EnCana Leasehold (2014), 597 A.R. 178 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. OC.042

The Cogent Group Inc. (plaintiff) v. EnCana Leasehold Limited Partnership (defendant)

(0901 18601; 2014 ABQB 593)

Indexed As: Cogent Group Inc. v. EnCana Leasehold Limited Partnership

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Jones, J.

September 29, 2014.

Summary:

The plaintiff's long standing contractual relationships with EnCana Power and Processing ULC (EnCana Power contract) and the defendant EnCana Leasehold Limited Partnership (EnCana Leasehold contract) came to an end. The plaintiff sued the defendant for wrongful termination of the EnCana Leasehold contract and wrongful interference with the EnCana Power contract. The plaintiff sought (1) damages in an amount reflecting the calculation of amounts owing pursuant to clause 2.2(b) of the contract for early termination, agreed by EnCana Leasehold to be $1,057,426.65; (2) damages for loss of reputation and consequent loss of profits; (3) Wallace damages or alternatively, aggravated or punitive damages; (4) interest; and, (5) solicitor and own client costs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 590 A.R. 171, dismissed the action. The court directed the parties to provide written submissions on costs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded costs in favour of EnCana and dealt with the individual costs issues accordingly.

Practice - Topic 7118.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Multiplier - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that it had the power to award whatever multiplier it saw fit - The selection of a multiplier, if any, had to take into account appropriate considerations, such as the factors outlined in rule 10.33(1) of the Rules of Court - Success alone was not justification for using a multiplier - See paragraphs 31 and 37.

Practice - Topic 7118.1

Costs - Party and party costs - Special orders - Multiplier - Cogent sued EnCana for breach of contract, alleging that EnCana wrongfully terminated a contract - Agreed damages were $1,057,426.65 - The trial spanned six days, after which Cogent's claim against EnCana was dismissed because Cogent acted in breach of its contract with EnCana - Further, EnCana had not acted wrongfully in terminating the contract - Encana sought costs determined under Division 2 of Schedule C to the Rules of Court and claimed that a multiplier of two should be applied - Encana based its request for a multiplier of two on the basis of outcome (its success) and the importance of the issues (EnCana's reputation) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench declined to apply a multiplier - See paragraphs 13 to 44.

Practice - Topic 7134

Costs - Party and party costs - Disbursements - Photocopies, scanning, printing or binding - Cogent sued EnCana for breach of contract, alleging that EnCana wrongfully terminated a contract - Agreed damages were $1,057,426.65 - The trial spanned six days, after which Cogent's claim against EnCana was dismissed because Cogent acted in breach of its contract with EnCana - Further, EnCana had not acted wrongfully in terminating the contract - Encana sought disbursements of 15 cents a page for photocopying - Cogent argued that Encana should receive no more than 10 cents per page - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench awarded 15 cents a page for 13,327 pages in favour of EnCana for photocopying charges - See paragraphs 61 to 63.

Cases Noticed:

Marathon Canada Ltd. v. Enron Canada Corp. (2008), 447 A.R. 89; 2008 ABQB 770, refd to. [para. 13].

Hill v. Hill Family Trust et al. (2013), 561 A.R. 50; 594 W.A.C. 50; 2013 ABCA 313, refd to. [para. 14].

Bank of Montreal v. Cochrane et al., [2011] A.R. Uned. 478; 2011 ABQB 432, refd to. [para. 16].

Klemeke Mining Corp. v. Shell Canada Ltd. et al., [2007] A.R. Uned. 513; 159 A.C.W.S.(3d) 509; 2007 ABQB 427, refd to. [para. 16].

Aram Systems Ltd. v. NovAtel Inc. et al. (2010), 476 A.R. 188; 2010 ABQB 152, refd to. [para. 16].

Evans v. Sports Corp. (2011), 523 A.R. 88; 2011 ABQB 616, refd to. [para. 23].

Chisholm v. Lindsay (2013), 571 A.R. 260; 2013 ABQB 589, refd to. [para. 24].

Fill et al. v. Somani et al. (2013), 571 A.R. 230; 2013 ABQB 572, refd to. [para. 27].

Clancy v. Gough et al. (2011), 523 A.R. 163; 2011 ABQB 778, refd to. [para. 48].

Crooked Post Shorthorns et al. v. Masterfeeds Inc., [2009] A.R. Uned. 72; 2009 ABQB 69, refd to. [para. 61].

Contract Policy Committee et al. v. FortisAlberta Inc. (2013), 552 A.R. 58; 2013 ABQB 191, refd to. [para. 61].

Central Alberta Rural Electrification Association Ltd. v. FortisAlberta Inc. - see Contract Policy Committee et al. v. FortisAlberta Inc.

Counsel:

Brent L. Robinson (Carscallen LLP), for the plaintiff;

Munaf Mohamed and Desislava Docheva (Bennett Jones LLP), for the defendant.

This costs matter was dealt with by way of written submissions by Jones, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on September 29, 2014.