Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Respondent sought costs under the Court of Appeal Act after appellant abandoned her appeal.

• Appellant challenged the respondent’s entitlement to costs, arguing the statute had changed and circumstances were beyond her control.

• Judicial review was initiated after Sport Dispute Management Inc. began an administrative dispute resolution process against the appellant.

• The petition was struck as premature because the administrative hearing had not yet occurred and no decision had been issued.

• The court confirmed the established practice that respondents are entitled to costs when an appeal is abandoned unless a compelling reason exists.

• No compelling reason was found to depart from the usual costs award; costs were awarded on the ordinary scale.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

Jennifer Pinkerton, the appellant, applied for judicial review after Sport Dispute Management Inc. (SDM) commenced an administrative dispute resolution process to address a complaint filed against her. SDM applied to strike the petition as premature because the hearing had not occurred and SDM had not issued a decision. On May 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of British Columbia granted SDM’s application and struck the petition as premature.

Ms. Pinkerton filed a notice of appeal and applied to stay SDM’s hearing of the complaint. That application was adjourned because Ms. Pinkerton had not filed a copy of the chambers judge’s reasons. It became clear she could not do so before the date set for hearing of the underlying complaint, and SDM did not consent to adjourn that hearing. Ms. Pinkerton then filed a notice of abandonment of her appeal. SDM sought costs and scheduled an assessment before the registrar.

Legal issues and arguments

The issue before the court was whether SDM was entitled to costs following the appellant’s abandonment of her appeal. The established practice is that a respondent is entitled to costs when an appellant abandons an appeal unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Ms. Pinkerton argued that this practice was based on the former statute and that the current Court of Appeal Act is different. She also argued that she did not lose the appeal but abandoned it because it became moot for reasons outside her control, specifically the time required to get the reasons transcribed and SDM’s refusal to adjourn the hearing. SDM argued that the appeal had no chance of success and that it should not be deprived of costs.

Court’s analysis and decision

The court found no material difference between the former and current statutory provisions regarding costs. Both provide that a successful party is entitled to costs of the appeal unless a court or justice orders otherwise. The court confirmed the established practice that appellants who abandon their appeals are required to pay costs, not only those who lose. The court found no authority or case where an appeal abandoned because it is moot was found to be a compelling reason to excuse the appellant from the usual costs obligation. The court concluded that the circumstances did not give rise to a compelling reason to depart from the usual award.

Outcome

The court dismissed Ms. Pinkerton’s arguments and awarded costs to Sport Dispute Management Inc. on the ordinary scale (Scale A). No damages were awarded. The specific amount of costs was not stated in the decision but is to be assessed according to the ordinary scale. Sport Dispute Management Inc. was the successful party in this appeal.