Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Costs of appeal 2401-0220AC were ordered to be borne individually by each party.

• In appeal 2401-0238AC, costs were left to be determined by the Court of King’s Bench at the end of litigation.

• Calderbank offers were ruled irrelevant to the Court of Appeal’s cost determination.

• Respondents Penney, MacDonald, and Monilaws were given an option to elect a fixed cost or await the trial court’s ruling.

• A total fixed award of $15,000 was offered to Penney, and another $15,000 jointly to MacDonald and Monilaws.

• A deadline of February 27, 2025, was set for respondents to elect their cost option or default to the fixed awards.

Background and procedural context

This decision arises from two appeals heard by the Alberta Court of Appeal in the case of Great North Equipment Inc v Penney, 2025 ABCA 44. The appellants were Great North Equipment Inc and 1185641 BC Ltd. The respondents included Bradley Penney; Neil MacDonald and Dustin Monilaws (jointly treated as one party); and corporate entities Paloma Pressure Control LLC, Paloma PC Holdings LLC, and Paloma Pressure Control Canada Ltd. The appeals concerned costs following prior rulings by Justice Dilts and Justice Lema.

The appeals and cost-related rulings

For appeal 2401-0220AC, which related to an interlocutory ruling of Justice Dilts, the Court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

For appeal 2401-0238AC, which concerned the order of Justice Lema, the Court ruled that the matter of costs between the appellants and the Paloma corporate respondents should be determined by the Court of King’s Bench at the conclusion of the litigation. The decision referred to Rule 14.88(3) of the Alberta Rules of Court (AR 124/2010). It was explicitly stated that any Calderbank offers made would have no effect on the appellate court’s cost determination.

Election of cost outcomes for individual respondents

The Court offered the respondents Bradley Penney, and Neil MacDonald and Dustin Monilaws (treated as one party), two options regarding costs: (a) join the other parties and seek a costs-in-the-cause ruling in the Court of King’s Bench, or (b) accept a fixed cost award. The fixed award was set at $15,000 for Penney and $15,000 jointly for MacDonald and Monilaws, payable by the appellants. The Court clarified that the total cost under option (b) would be $30,000.

These respondents were required to inform the appellants of their election by the end of business on February 27, 2025. Failure to do so would result in the automatic application of option (b), awarding them the fixed amounts.

Outcome and next steps

The Court did not award costs for the submissions made specifically on the issue of costs. It left unresolved any accumulated costs in the Court of King’s Bench, deferring that matter entirely to that court’s discretion. The memorandum was filed in Calgary, Alberta, on February 10, 2025, by Justices Watson, Feehan, and de Wit.