Background Facts:
The plaintiffs pursued a declaration that they had suffered a "compensable loss" under section 65 of the Real Estate Services Act, S.B.C. 2004, c.42. Their claim related to losses connected to a real estate transaction involving the defendant, Johnson Castaneto Salanga. The RECFC, a statutory body responsible for administering compensation claims under the Act, was added as a defendant as the declaration required a court finding based on evidence. The application for a summary trial was opposed by RECFC.

Legal Arguments and Issues:
The plaintiffs argued that they met the criteria for a compensable loss and, as successful parties, were entitled to costs under Rule 14-1(9) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules. RECFC contended that each party should bear its own costs, given its regulatory role and lack of responsibility for delays in the proceedings. Alternatively, RECFC suggested limiting any costs awarded to the summary trial application alone. Both parties agreed that costs, if awarded, should be assessed at Scale B.

Court’s Decision on Costs:
The court concluded that RECFC acted similarly to a public interest litigant, contributing constructively to the proceedings without adding unnecessary costs or delays. Despite opposing the application, RECFC's involvement was deemed helpful. As such, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

Total Award and Costs:
No monetary award or costs were granted to the plaintiffs.