Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicants challenged the certification of a bill of costs awarded on an indemnity basis in favor of Alberta Health Services.

• The chambers judge directed the respondent to provide detailed information about the individuals performing legal work and the nature of the work billed.

• Applicants sought permission to appeal, alleging speculative statements by the chambers judge, failure to address allegations against former counsel, and dissatisfaction with the timing of disclosure.

• The Court of Appeal found the applicants’ appeal had no reasonable chance of success, as the substantive relief sought was already granted or pending before the assessment officer.

• Appeals cannot be used to challenge judicial comments or seek orders already made by the lower court.

• Application for permission to appeal was dismissed, with no costs ordered.

Background and procedural history
Xiaoli Lily Wang and Daiming Robert Li, the applicants, sought permission to appeal a decision related to the certification of a bill of costs submitted by Alberta Health Services. In June 2016, costs were awarded on an indemnity basis against the applicants in favor of the respondent. In June 2019, an assessment officer certified the costs payable by the applicants as set out in a bill of costs prepared by the respondent. The applicants appealed the assessment officer’s decision in July 2019 under Rule 10.44 of the Alberta Rules of Court, but the hearing was delayed for various reasons.

Issues on appeal
On May 29, 2024, a case conference judge issued a procedural order limiting the appeal to two issues: whether the applicants should have been provided with the names of the people performing the legal work identified in the bill of costs, and whether they should have been provided with details of the work performed. On May 28, 2025, the chambers judge found largely in favor of the applicants on both issues, directing the respondent to provide, for each person whose time was included on the bill of costs, their initials, working title and position, year of call or years in the profession, role and expertise, billing rate, and a description of the work done in sufficient detail to enable the applicants to make an informed assessment and to ensure procedural fairness. The bill of costs was remitted to a different assessment officer for review, with the required disclosure to be provided no later than 60 days prior to the rescheduled assessment hearing.

Applicants’ request for further appeal
The applicants sought permission to appeal the chambers judge’s decision, asserting that the judge made speculative and unsupported statements, failed to address allegations that former counsel for the respondent had conducted himself improperly, and should have directed the disclosure to be provided sooner.

Court of Appeal’s decision
The Court of Appeal, per Justice Alice Woolley, found that the applicants’ appeal had no reasonable chance of success. The chambers judge had already granted the substantive relief sought by the applicants, or the relief depended on the future decision of the assessment officer, which had yet to be made. The Court stated that a party cannot appeal to obtain relief already ordered by the lower court or with respect to a determination not yet made. The Court also noted that appeals are from the order, not from the reasons for the order, and there was no arguable case that the comments identified gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The applicants’ concern about not acceding to the chambers judge’s characterization of their conduct was found not to be a basis for permission to appeal. The Court found no basis to interfere with the scheduling direction for disclosure to be provided 60 days prior to the rescheduled assessment hearing.

Outcome
The application for permission to appeal was dismissed. The respondent did not request costs, and no costs were ordered. Rule 9.4(2)(c) was invoked, and the Court would prepare the resulting order. Alberta Health Services was the successful party, but no specific monetary amount was ordered in this decision.