MDS v DSM, 2020 ABQB 749
| Judge | Honourable Mr. Justice M. J. Lema |
| Neutral Citation | 2020 ABQB 749 |
| Docket Number | FL03 57663 |
| Citation | 2020 ABQB 749 |
| Date | 03 December 2020 |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
2 practice notes
-
Mmp v Twz
...reveals a low income. 23 The unsuccessful party's inability to pay is not a factor in gauging entitlement to costs: DSM v MDS, 2020 ABQB 749 at para 13; Anderson v Canada Safeway Limited, 2005 ABCA 6 at para 3. Costs may be awarded against a low-income earner who is currently unable to......
-
Laurence v Ross
...be considered in a costs award where the applicant was entirely successful: see Metz v Weisgerber, 2004 ABCA 151 at para 27; MDS v DSM, 2020 ABQB 749 at para 13; Nielsen-Daigle v Nielsen-Daigle, 2020 ABQB 84 at paras 4. Conclusion 50 In recognition of the legal cost principles noted above, ......
2 cases
-
Mmp v Twz,
...reveals a low income. 23 The unsuccessful party's inability to pay is not a factor in gauging entitlement to costs: DSM v MDS, 2020 ABQB 749 at para 13; Anderson v Canada Safeway Limited, 2005 ABCA 6 at para 3. Costs may be awarded against a low-income earner who is currently unable to......
-
Laurence v Ross,
...be considered in a costs award where the applicant was entirely successful: see Metz v Weisgerber, 2004 ABCA 151 at para 27; MDS v DSM, 2020 ABQB 749 at para 13; Nielsen-Daigle v Nielsen-Daigle, 2020 ABQB 84 at paras 4. Conclusion 50 In recognition of the legal cost principles noted above, ......