A.S. v. N.L.H. et al., 2006 ABQB 708

• Judge: Lee, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 27, 2006
• Citations: 2006 ABQB 708;(2006), 405 A.R. 35 (QB)

A.S. v. N.L.H. (2006), 405 A.R. 35 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. OC.066

A.S. (plaintiff) v. N.L.H., D.J.H. and L.A.H. (defendants)

(0203 11345; 2006 ABQB 708)

Indexed As: A.S. v. N.L.H. et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

September 27, 2006.

Summary:

The parties agreed to participate in a judicial dispute resolution. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants' brief contained insulting comments and facts not supported by the evidence. The plaintiff obtained an adjournment. The defendants moved for costs.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $250 under rule 599.1.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Practice - Topic 5269.5

Trials - General - Judicial or alternate dispute resolution - Costs - The parties agreed to participate in a judicial dispute resolution (JDR) - The plaintiff claimed that the defendants' brief contained insulting comment and facts not supported by the evidence - The plaintiff obtained an adjournment - The defendants moved for costs - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of $250 under rule 599.1 - The court's policy had been that costs would not be awarded in JDRs - However, a JDR judge had the jurisdiction to grant costs in a JDR because he was acting in a judicial capacity - The awarding of costs for adjournments of JDRs was warranted where the facts did not justify the adjournment - The arguments raised by the plaintiff justifying her request for an adjournment were not reasonable - However, the defendants' comments were gratuitously derogatory and that approach was not one that was conducive to pursuing settlement.

Cases Noticed:

Beenham et al. v. Rigel Oil & Gas Ltd. et al. (1998), 240 A.R. 122; 1998 ABQB 1100, refd to. [para. 7].

Sinclaire v. South Trail Shell (1987) et al., [2002] A.R. Uned. 539; 2002 ABQB 378, refd to. [para. 7].

Abernethy (J.W.) Management & Consulting Ltd. et al. v. 705589 Alberta Ltd. et al. (2005), 367 A.R. 38; 346 W.A.C. 38; 2005 ABCA 103, refd to. [para. 11].

Lastiwka et al. v. TD Waterhouse Investor Services (Canada) Inc., [2006] A.R. Uned. 412; 2006 ABQB 567, refd to. [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Agrios, John A., A Handbook on Judicial Dispute Resolution for Canadian Judges, pp. 8, 9 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Bruce King (Bruce King Professional Corp.), for the plaintiff;

Brendan A. Carr (Carr Defir), for the defendants.

This application was heard by Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on September 27, 2006.