Background
Harbhajan Kaur Randhawa and Malkiat Panag are former spouses involved in family-law litigation. In February 2023, the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed Randhawa’s application to have Panag’s counterclaim dismissed for want of prosecution. Randhawa appealed that order the following month.
The appeal was placed on the inactive list, reactivated by a chambers order in February 2024, and later became inactive again. It was dismissed as abandoned in September 2025. When Panag sought costs of the abandoned appeal, Randhawa accepted some responsibility for costs but argued that they should be limited to the period after reactivation or reduced to reflect her explanation for the delay and the asserted lack of prejudice to Panag.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that Panag was entitled to costs of the abandoned appeal on the ordinary scale. The established practice is that a respondent receives costs when an appellant abandons an appeal unless the appellant demonstrates a compelling reason to depart from that practice. Randhawa had not done so.
The Court rejected the argument that awarding costs associated with the appeal’s first inactive period would collaterally attack the chambers order that reactivated the appeal without expressly addressing costs. Under s. 44(1) of the Court of Appeal Act, the successful party’s appellate costs include the costs of applications made in the appeal unless the court orders otherwise. The Court also held that the ordinary costs rule does not depend on proof of prejudice, neglect, bad faith, or tactical abuse.
Key Takeaways
- A respondent is presumptively entitled to costs when an appellant abandons an appeal, absent a compelling reason to order otherwise.
- An appellate chambers order that makes no express costs order does not prevent the successful party from recovering the application’s costs as part of the appeal costs.
- The successful party need not prove prejudice or misconduct by the losing party to obtain ordinary appellate costs.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that abandoning an appeal ordinarily carries costs consequences covering the appeal as a whole, including interlocutory applications. A reasonable explanation for delay and an absence of demonstrated prejudice will not, without more, displace the presumptive rule.