Key Points:

• Background: This costs decision follows the case 102125001 Saskatchewan Ltd v Alphonse Hutchings, 2023 ABKB 630, where the court upheld 102’s right to enforce certain loans despite breaches by a non-Alberta credit union.

• Plaintiff’s Claim: 102 sought solicitor-client legal fees amounting to $38,003.50 plus disbursements and GST, totaling $42,677.07.

• Defendants' Argument: The defendants contested the fees, arguing that the contract mentioned "reasonable" solicitor-client costs and that there was no evidence to gauge reasonableness. They proposed costs based on Schedule C with a multiplier, totaling $17,984.25.

• Court’s Analysis:

  1. Entitlement: While 102 was entitled to solicitor-client costs, these must be "reasonable".
  2. Insufficient Evidence: 102 failed to provide sufficient evidence to gauge the reasonableness of the claimed fees, only providing the total amount and a brief list of tasks.
  3. Requirements: To claim solicitor-client costs, detailed evidence of tasks, persons involved, billable rates, and time spent must be provided, as per Barkwell v McDonald and Petropoulos v Petropoulos.
  4. Direction for Costs Submissions: The court had directed 102 to provide supporting materials, including a draft bill of costs, which was not adequately done.
  5. Proportionality: The proposed costs by the defendants were deemed reasonable and proportional, equating to approximately 40% of the solicitor-client fees claimed by 102.

• Conclusion:

  • The court approved the costs amount of $17,984.25 proposed by the defendants.
  • An additional $984.25 was awarded to the defendants for costs related to this costs exercise, offsetting the plaintiff's costs award, resulting in net costs payable of $17,000 to the plaintiff.