Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant challenged the quantification of solicitor and own client costs, alleging procedural unfairness and errors in the assessment process.

• Deference to the assessment officer’s specialized knowledge and findings was a central legal principle applied by the appeal judge.

• The applicant’s proposed grounds for appeal included alleged procedural errors, improper considerations in cost quantification, and the fairness of double costs awarded.

• The Court clarified that a second appeal from an assessment officer’s decision requires a question of general or public importance and a reasonable chance of success.

• None of the applicant’s proposed grounds met the threshold for permission to appeal, as they did not raise issues of public importance or demonstrate a reasonable chance of success.

• The applicant was ordered to pay further costs, reflecting the consequences of his litigation conduct and the expense imposed on the respondent.

Background and facts

The applicant, Ikenna Uhuegbulem, and his former spouse were landlords to the respondent, Toni Timpano. In 2023, a dispute was brought before the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS), which found that a rent increase notice sent by the applicant was invalid. The RTDRS ordered the landlords to pay the respondent $2,522, which included a rent rebate of $1,650 (RTDRS Order).

Uhuegbulem appealed the rent rebate portion of the RTDRS Order to the Court of King’s Bench. He initially obtained ex parte Orders extending the time to appeal and granting his appeal, but Justice M. Gaston later vacated those Orders and dismissed the appeal. Justice Gaston concluded that the applicant engaged in litigation misconduct and ordered him to pay solicitor and own client costs—full indemnity costs—of the appeal (Rebate Appeal Order).

The applicant sought to appeal the Rebate Appeal Order to the Court of Appeal, but his request for an extension of time to seek permission to appeal was dismissed, as the proposed appeal was found to have no reasonable chance of success (Uhuegbulem v Timpano, 2025 ABCA 110).

The solicitor and own client costs awarded under the Rebate Appeal Order were quantified at $19,394.81 by an assessment officer following a hearing directed by Justice Gaston, resulting in the Assessment Order.

Uhuegbulem appealed the Assessment Order under Rule 10.44 of the Alberta Rules of Court. A Justice of the Court of King’s Bench heard the appeal and dismissed it on February 27, 2025, confirming that the assessment officer’s decision was entitled to deference and that the appeal was not an opportunity to revisit the merits of the original costs award. The appeal judge also awarded double costs totaling $4,050 against Uhuegbulem because of a Calderbank offer.

Policy terms and legal standards

The application for permission to appeal was governed by Rule 14.5(1)(i) of the Alberta Rules of Court, which requires permission to appeal from a decision of the Court of King’s Bench sitting as an appeal court under Rule 10.44. The Court adopted the test set out in Bertram Family Trust v Felesky Flynn LLP, 2025 ABCA 54, which considers whether there is a question of general or public importance, a reasonable chance of success on appeal, and whether the delay would unduly hinder the progress of a related proceeding or cause undue prejudice to the simplified, timely, and economical process contemplated for the assessment of costs awards.

The Court emphasized that a second appeal is exceptional and must meet a high bar, with deference owed to the assessment officer’s specialized knowledge and experience in assessing costs. The appeal judge’s role was limited to reviewing the quantification of costs for errors in principle or palpable and overriding error.

Outcome and reasoning

Justice Kevin Feth, writing for the Court of Appeal, denied Uhuegbulem’s application for permission to appeal. The Court found that none of the applicant’s proposed grounds raised a question of general or public importance or had a reasonable chance of success. The alleged procedural unfairness was unsupported by the record, as the applicant was properly served with materials and had the opportunity to present his case. The assessment officer’s and appeal judge’s decisions were found to be thorough, fair, and in accordance with the Rules.

The Court noted that the costs awarded reflected the consequences of the applicant’s litigation conduct, including his failure to make timely payment of the RTDRS award, pursuit of meritless appeals, and refusal to accept a reasonable compromise. The applicant was ordered to pay a further lump sum of $5,500 in costs to the respondent for the application. The Court stated that the respondent’s counsel provided an estimate of $6,200 for full indemnity legal expenses for responding to the application, but a modest reduction was made to recognize some duplication.

The application for permission to appeal was dismissed, and the Court ordered that the applicant pay lump sum costs of $5,500 forthwith to the respondent for this application. The Court will prepare the Order, and Rule 9.4(2)(c) is invoked. The application was heard on July 31, 2025, and the memorandum was filed at Calgary, Alberta, on August 15, 2025. The appearances were I. Uhuegbulem for the applicant and M.A. Loberg and D. Weiss for the respondent.