Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants successfully disqualified Mr. Denis and Guardian Law Group LLP as counsel of record for the Plaintiff, while their consolidation application was dismissed

• Mixed success was acknowledged by both parties, yet the Court found the Defendants achieved substantial success overall since the disqualification application was the primary issue

• Claimed actual costs of approximately $40,000.00 per Defendant were deemed entirely unreasonable and excessive for a half-day hearing, with significant duplication noted

• Abusive and offensive correspondence authored by the Plaintiff toward opposing counsel warranted enhanced costs of $2,500.00 per Defendant despite the Plaintiff not being a Law Society member

• The Plaintiff's October Calderbank offer was found inoperative for lacking an expiry date and being served only 10 days before the hearing

• Each Defendant was awarded total costs of $6,286.90 plus GST, comprising Schedule C costs, disbursements, photocopy charges, and enhanced costs

The underlying dispute and parties involved

Mike Terrigno, a self-represented plaintiff who holds a law degree but is not a member of the Law Society of Alberta, commenced two separate actions before the Court of King's Bench of Alberta in Calgary. The first action (Docket No. 2401-05816) was filed against Brad Celmainis and John Doe, and the second (Docket No. 2401-00282) against Jonathan Weal and John Doe. This costs decision, rendered by the Honourable Mr. Justice O.P. Malik on March 18, 2026, arose from an earlier decision dated December 10, 2025, reported at Terrigno v Celmainis, 2026 ABKB 139.

The December 2025 decision giving rise to costs

In the underlying decision, the Court allowed the Defendants' application to disqualify Mr. Denis and Guardian Law Group LLP from acting as counsel of record for the Plaintiff. At the same time, the Court dismissed the Defendants' application for consolidation of the two actions, though it gave the Defendants permission to renew that application in the future. The Plaintiff argued that he was partially successful on the disqualification issue because the Court permitted Mr. Denis and his firm to continue assisting him in a limited capacity, so long as they did not serve as counsel of record. The Court rejected this characterization, finding that the Defendants had achieved substantial success since the disqualification application was the primary issue at the hearing, consuming the majority of the parties' written and oral arguments.

The parties' competing positions on costs

Both sides acknowledged that success was divided. The Defendants sought costs of approximately $22,000.00 each, calculated under Column 2 of Schedule C with a 4x multiplier, plus a further 10% increase to account for the Plaintiff's litigation conduct. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that each party should bear its own costs. He requested that if costs were to be awarded, the Court should grant him a lump sum of $1,500.00 against each Defendant, and he noted that he had served two Calderbank settlement offers — one dated October 14, 2025 offering $100.00 per Defendant and another dated December 21, 2025 offering $250.00 per Defendant.

The Court's assessment of legal fees and disbursements

Justice Malik found the Defendants' claimed actual costs of approximately $40,000.00 to be entirely unreasonable and excessive for a half-day hearing, particularly given that the Defendants' legal fees and disbursements were, to a significant extent, duplicative. The Court assessed costs in accordance with Column 2 of Schedule C but entitled each Defendant to 75% of their Column 2 costs to account for duplication, resulting in total Schedule C costs of $3,532.50 per Defendant. The Court also reduced photocopying costs from a collective claim of $974.25 (for 6,495 pages) to $150.00 per Defendant, finding the totals of pages printed to be excessive.

The Plaintiff's abusive correspondence and its consequences

A significant portion of the decision addressed the Plaintiff's correspondence directed at opposing counsel between October and December 2024. The Court reproduced excerpts of the correspondence, which the Plaintiff did not deny he authored. These included insults such as calling counsel "dense," a "moron," an "incompetent buffoon," and a "laughingstock loser," among other derogatory remarks. While the Plaintiff attempted to explain this language by citing significant animosity and alleged mistreatment by the Defendants and their counsel, Justice Malik found the degree of hostility and invective to be neither justified nor acceptable. The Court noted that Terrigno is a sophisticated litigant who holds a law degree, has received formal legal training, and engages in litigation before all levels of Courts in Alberta, and that his legal education and training would have apprised him of his obligation to behave professionally and to treat other litigants, counsel, and the Court with courtesy, respect, and decorum. The Court further observed that this was not the first occasion on which the Courts had criticized his conduct, referencing prior decisions in Terrigno v Litzius, 2018 ABQB 602 and Terrigno v Litzius, 2019 ABCA 100, where similar abusive correspondence had been noted.

The Court's treatment of the multiplier and settlement offers

The Court declined to apply a multiplier to the Schedule C costs, reasoning that it had already dismissed the Defendants' claim for enhanced costs related to the Plaintiff's litigation conduct and had awarded the Defendants a measure of enhanced costs which accounts for the Plaintiff's abusive correspondence. Regarding the Plaintiff's Calderbank offers, the Court found the October offer inoperative because it was served on the Defendants a mere 10 days prior to the hearing and lacked an expiry date, and the Court was not satisfied that it represented a reasonable compromise or a genuine attempt at settlement. The December offer was rendered inapplicable because the Defendants were the successful parties in the costs decision.

The ruling and costs awarded

Ultimately, Justice Malik awarded each Defendant total costs of $6,286.90 plus GST, broken down as follows: Schedule C costs of $3,532.50, taxable disbursements of $8.40, non-taxable disbursements of $96.00, photocopy charges of $150.00, and enhanced costs of $2,500.00 to address the Plaintiff's abusive correspondence. The Defendants — Brad Celmainis and Jonathan Weal — were the successful parties. While the amount awarded was significantly less than the approximately $22,000.00 each Defendant had sought, the Court found it important to denounce and sanction the Plaintiff's conduct, and determined that enhanced costs were appropriate even though the Plaintiff is not governed by the Law Society and is not bound by a lawyer's professional obligations under the Code.