2002 SKQB 125 Q.B.G. A.D. 2001 No. 1447 J.C. R. IN THE QUEEN’S BENCH JUDICIAL CENTRE OF REGINA BETWEEN: GARTH TREBLE and WENDY JACKSON PLAINTIFFS (DEFENDANTS BY COUNTER-CLAIM) and GOLDEAN ENTERPRISES INC. and P.T. APOTHECARY LTD. DEFENDANTS (PLAINTIFFS BY COUNTER-CLAIM) and P.T. ALCHEMY LTD., CABRI HOLDINGS LTD., 611601 SASKATCHEWAN LTD., CON PHARM LTD., GEOJACK ENTERPRISES INC., KEVIN HUDY PHARMACY LTD. and PARC HOLDING LTD. DEFENDANTS Daniel S. Tapp for the plaintiffs (defendants by counter-claim) Dana D. J. Schindelka for the defendants (plaintiffs by counter-claim), Goldean Enterprises Inc. and P.T. Apothecary Ltd. FIAT MacDONALD J. April 4, 2002 [1] On January 24, 2002, this matter was heard in chambers and I reserved on the issue of whether costs should be assessed against the plaintiffs for the following reasons:(a) The two motions which were served by the plaintiffs on the defendants returnable for January 24, 2002, were not filed at the Court House prior to the return date as required by The Queen’s Bench Rules; (b) The motion which was filed at the Court House returnable January 24, 2002, was not served on the defendants; and (c) Prior to the return date, the plaintiffs’ counsel advised the defendants that the two motions which had been served on them were not, in fact, going to proceed. [2] Because of the peculiar circumstances surrounding the three applications, the applications were dismissed. There was request by the defendants’ counsel to have the matter addressed by way of costs. [3] When asked counsel for the plaintiffs to speak to the issue of costs on the chamber date, he indicated in open Court that he was under extreme pressure and lot of stress lately with respect to this file and others and therefore had prepared three motions which were fairly similar to one another and that in his confusion he had filed some and not filed others. [4] Given Mr. Tapp’s representation as to the amount of stress that he was presently under, I do not believe it would be appropriate in the circumstances to assess costs against the plaintiffs over the conduct of their counsel or against counsel directly at this time. Accordingly, I leave this matter to be determined by the trial judge in the course of this action.
FIAT. The issue was whether costs should be assessed against the plaintiffs because the two motions served by the plaintiffs were not filed at the Court House prior to the return date as required by the Queen's Bench Rules;  the motion filed at the Court House was not served on the defendants; plaintiff's counsel advised the defendants that the two motions which had been served on them were not in fact going to proceed. HELD: Given the lawyer's representation as to the amount of stress he was under, it would not be appropriate in the circumstances to assess costs against the plaintiffs over the conduct of their counsel or against counsel directly or at this time. The matter was left to the trial judge.