Michael Sirdevan

The defendants were previously granted leave to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10.

The court had initially expressed reluctance to award costs due to the poor quality of the defendants' motion materials, which made it difficult to determine the relevance of the proposed evidence.

The defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $13,916.32.

The court awarded a reduced lump sum of $3,500, noting that while the defendants satisfied the rule's requirements on their second attempt, the costs award must reflect the inadequacy of their materials, which did not even include a factum.

The defendants moved under Rule 31.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to examine a non-party, a former employee of the plaintiff municipality, under oath.

The underlying action involved allegations that the defendants submitted fraudulent invoices to the municipality.

The court found that the non-party had relevant evidence regarding the invoices and that the defendants had made appropriate efforts to obtain the evidence before resorting to the motion.

The motion was granted, as it would be unfair to require the defendants to proceed to trial without knowing the non-party's evidence.

Following a motion to change spousal support where support was ordered to step down over three years, both parties sought costs.

The moving party (former husband) had sought immediate termination, while the responding party (former wife) had offered a step-down over seven years or a lump sum.

The court found the responding party was the successful party as she delayed termination for three years, whereas the moving party was inflexible in demanding immediate termination.

The court awarded the responding party costs of $4,500, taking into account her partial success and her offer to settle.

The applicant brought an urgent motion under rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules seeking a temporary order permitting relocation with a child to Alberta due to the applicant’s spouse being temporarily transferred for employment.

The motion sought to proceed before a case conference on the basis of urgency tied to an upcoming school start date and planned relocation timeline.

The court held that the circumstances did not constitute urgency or hardship within the meaning of rule 14(4.2), emphasizing that parties cannot manufacture urgency through delay or logistical convenience.

The court found no evidence of harm to the child if the relocation decision were briefly delayed and concluded that the responding parent was entitled to a full opportunity to respond before a potential status quo change.

The request to proceed without a case conference was therefore dismissed and directions were given to schedule a case conference and motion promptly.