What happened: A self-represented policyholder must pay AIG and a law firm costs after a failed bid to merge two lawsuits.
Who's involved: AIG Insurance Company of Canada, law firm Scott Venturo Rudakoff LLP, and a self-represented policyholder.
What's at stake: $2,212.50 plus GST each to AIG and the firm, $750 each more, and two $400 penalties.
Why it matters: The firm's insurance didn't block its costs, and AIG's out-of-town lawyer travel wasn't covered.
Where it stands: Decided October 6, 2026. Final costs come later, and the coverage fight is still open.
More than 850 pages. That's how much paper a self-represented policyholder filed in Alberta to fight a legal bill.
She was up against AIG Insurance Company of Canada and law firm Scott Venturo Rudakoff LLP, known as SVR. Both wanted her to cover their legal fees after her bid to merge two lawsuits fell apart.
The pages didn't change the outcome. On October 6, 2026, the Court of King's Bench of Alberta ordered her to pay both, and added two $400 penalties for not following the court's directions.
AIG brought a lawsuit against her, and she sued back. At the heart of that case is whether she's entitled to coverage under her insurance policy - the court called it "the very subject" of the action. She has also sued SVR and three individuals, claiming "a minimum of $1,000,000."
She wanted the two cases joined up or heard together. The court said no in an earlier ruling, without weighing whether the idea had merit, because she hadn't followed its directions.
One of those directions was a page limit. According to the decision, she asked to be excused from it, was refused, "and then ignored the Court's decision and proceeded anyway."
Then came the fight over who pays. Her costs filings included a 41-page submission, reply briefs of 347 and 300 pages, and a 164-page affidavit. The court called them "excessively long."
She acknowledged errors and slips, apologized "for any inadvertent breaches," and said she had tried in good faith to comply. She also accused AIG and SVR of "bad faith conduct and sharp practices." The court said her submissions "made unfounded allegations against SVR and AIG" and that the dismissal came down to her own failure to follow its directions.
AIG asked for $20,767.83. Its math leaned on a proposed counterclaim seeking $4,750,000 from the insurer, then doubled the result. The court noted that counterclaim had never been approved or agreed to by AIG, and used a lower bracket on its standard fee scale instead.
SVR asked for $12,675, which it said covered its full legal costs on the application at substantially reduced hourly rates.
Both got $2,212.50 plus GST. The court started with a base of $2,360, added 25% for inflation, multiplied by 1.5 for the extra complexity her conduct caused, then cut the total in half.
Why half? The merger bid was never decided on its merits, so she may try again, and some of the work done so far could still be used. The court treated 50% as a reasonable estimate of what was truly wasted.
Each also gets $750 plus GST for the time spent arguing over costs, and SVR gets back a $40 filing fee.
AIG wanted its lawyer's mileage and hotel covered too. The court said no.
The case is in Calgary, but AIG's lawyer was based in Edmonton. The court said AIG could have asked for a hearing by Webex, and hadn't shown it couldn't reasonably have hired a Calgary lawyer.
SVR's insurance came up as well. To the extent she argued SVR shouldn't get costs because it is insured, the court rejected the idea, and pointed to cases suggesting a winner's ability to afford its own lawyers isn't a reason to deny costs.
Her coverage claim against AIG stayed off the table. Deciding it in a costs ruling would be "inappropriate," the court said.
She has to pay now, however the lawsuits end. Final costs on the merger bid will be settled later, either in any new similar application or by agreement or after trial.
Paying up also matters for her next move. The court said whether she has paid will be "a material factor" if she asks for similar relief again.
Back in December 2025, the court ordered a $200 penalty and warned of sanctions "on an increasing scale." This time, the penalty doubled - $400 in each case.
A costs win against a self-represented policyholder is still a win, but the cheque can look very different from the bill, especially when the bill rests on a pleading the court never approved or a lawyer who drove in from another city.
The decision covers costs and penalties only.
